I don't know if this is just me being a negative grouchy old fart, but I have started deeply disliking such articles. I get so excited about something, only to learn it's somebody's random CAD sketch, probably without much in the way of practical engineering considerations, and will never ever see the light of day.
Good on people for playing, imagining, considering, wondering, but I wish there were a tag or some way for me to avoid them, or just a more upfront admission of what it is. They always start so serious, full of world problem solving proclamations in present tense ("this solves / this will replace / enabling " etc) and only by mid way do you realize there's nothing there there :-/
> They always start so serious, full of world problem solving proclamations in present tense ("this solves / this will replace / enabling " etc) and only by mid way do you realize there's nothing there there :-/
For a second there I thought you were talking about the SV startup scene. "We're making the world a better place by..."
Me, too. The article is effectively an advertisement for WDL = Whipsaw Design Lab. The designer they talk about is the WDL CEO. All quotes are by himself. It's on the WDL homepage. I'm not surprised that it's heavy on marketing keywords and light on results.
Yes and also, the images seem wrong, because the strings are arranged short to long left to right, whereas the pitch goes the other way. (Low pitch (requiring long strings) is to the left of the keyboard, to high pitch to the right).
So the thing that is shown would need to have hammer commands crossed to work as advertised. If done mechanically, it would add considerable complexity to the design.
Not saying this design has anything like that, but it could: high-end digital pianos come with mechanical key action that's very close to what upright or even grand pianos use - except the hammer strikes a sensor instead of a string at the end.
The sound in those high-end digital pianos is produced entirely electronically. For the sound to be produced by physical strings, you'd essentially be making a digitally-controlled 'player piano' mechanism: the keys strike a sensor, then the electronics control a solenoid to reproduce that strike on the real string.
I feel that the latency of this setup would be quite noticeable compared to a fully mechanical action.
The sensor wouldn't wait for the whole travel and hit of the hammer, instead it would measure hammer position/velocity at all times and replicate that, so the latency could be fairly small, I would be curious if small enough for a musician.
In the article they mentioned "[...] activated by solenoids, a proven technology even used on some Spirio Steinways.". On Spirio Steinways's website they advertise a player piano model called Spirio [0], and in the description it they mention their capabilities as "[...] measure hammer velocity (up to 1020 dynamic levels at a rate of up to 800 samples per second) [...]", a sensor at 800Hz would mean a sensing delay of 1.25ms as a starting point. To that we would need to add the mechanical delay of the solenoid, unfortunately I couldn't find a source for how fast are solenoids (the fastest I found was a solenoid hydraulic valve fully closes in 13ms, but that is the full travel, I couldn't find info on response time for first movement), so I'll make an out-of-my-ass guess that a fast solenoid starts acting in two or three ms, then round up and estimate the total delay to 4ms.
So would my 4ms guess be too much for a musician? I don't know, not my fields, my guess (I've been doing that a lot today) is that if we are talking tempo it is probably too little to matter. So my only worry would be phase, if a musician's ear is sensible/trained enough to detect phase (I don't know if it is, probably isn't right?), then a 4ms delay would mean being in antiphase to the expected response at ~125Hz, that is the B2 key.
4ms is 1.4 meters (4'6") of sound in air. That's less than half the length of a concert grand, so at most it would double the latency as experienced by the pianist's ears.
Thank you for looking into Steinway's technology in more detail. However, there are a couple of things that don't quite feel right about it.
Firstly, even if the sensing delay could be reduced to a couple of milliseconds, which I believe is perfectly plausible, I doubt whether the velocity of traditional solenoids could be controlled with enough accuracy to replicate the velocity exactly. They are on/off devices, so the only way to moderate the velocity is by rapidly changing the voltage by extremely small amounts. This I am supposing must need a feedback loop with a very complex function to account for different types of mechanical friction, electromagnetic impedance along the solenoid's coil and other factors that associate the voltage with the instantaneous velocity.
Alternatively, one could use a stepper-motor style linear actuator, which would certainly be very precise and could theoretically be powerful and fast enough to emulate a traditional piano's hammer. However, I have never seen such specialised stepper motors advertised, nor one small enough to fit in an unmodified grand piano action.
All in all, I don't believe that Steinway's really do have that capability, and I suspect that, whatever their measuring accuracy is, the precision of the actuator itself is more like a crude correlation to a few dozen levels of force than the claimed hundreds of levels. Of course, they do have a very slick-looking player piano, and I suspect that it what really matters for their clientèle.
On to your second point, I'm pretty sure that 4ms would indeed not be detectable. By 10ms I think I would be able to hear it; maybe there are people who could hear a delay shorter than that. As for phase, you can definitely detect the relative phase of two identical tones, but since an acoustic piano has up to three different strings each with complex harmonics I'm not sure you could pick out the phase of any individual tone that easily. However, I will admit that I am tempted to try now! :)
I expect they mean they have 10bit open loop control. Analog has lots of smoothing and things that cancel out you can get away with simple.
The speekers and headphones that can reproduce 16bit 44kHz music don't have feedback.
Did you notice the part where the designer is said to be celebrating his own legacy! Aren’t we all, aren’t we all.
I do think it’s a beautiful design and would do great on stage. You need something to look at in the concert hall and machinery beats looking at a sole pianists hair and hand movement. It’s what I like about orchestras - so much skill to look at.
It's certainly not designed by anyone who has the first clue about piano engineering.
The rich sound of a real piano is created by acoustic chorusing, direct acoustic coupling between the various strings, and also by indirect coupling between the bridge, metal frame, and sound board. This works best when the strings are parallel and fairly close together, with some overlap in the bass.
The entire assembly is tuned acoustically to highlight some notes more than others - for example Steinways have a powerful bass but a relatively controlled mid-range which brings out the details of the playing. Other brands make other choices.
The design of the action - the playing feel - is not at all trivial.
And good luck designing practical damper pedals for a spiral piano.
Even worse is implying that we should replace all creative processes with AI. I honestly don't understand what world you'd like to live in. One where humans do almost nothing interesting and instead ask computers to do it? That sounds depressing.
Not the op, but perhaps to put more charitable interpretation:
- if you're going to try to solve an actual challenge, improve on something, truly consider the design and purpose and limits and compromises and propose a different approach, brilliant
- but if all you're going to do is make a random somewhat pretty twist on existing thing, without actually considering the use, the purpose, the engineering, the what's and how's and why's, then... I'm kinda with him. What value did you add,that prompt to midjourney "create a spiral piano" wouldn't have?
I do understand the sentiment. I personally see value in human creation but I sort of get why others wouldn't.
I'm somewhat shocked by this overwhelmingly positive reaction to AI replacing human creativity so I may be overreacting? It just doesn't sit right with me — trading human subtlety for raw efficiency — but to each their own.
We'll see where it shakes out when it comes to art.
Even in myself I'm finding curious emotional responses: I'm now growing less interested in some of the more synthesized / formulaic types of music, and more interested in live performances / recording with real instruments. For visual art that is art, that to me usually needs some human emotion, message, story, path. For "art" that is placeholder or functional, yeah a lot of that may get replaced by AI.
My point to this particular article is though, if their sum contribution to the world is the analogue of:
1. Short one-sentence prompt to AI that's basically "piano, but tear-shaped"
2. 37 paragraphs of self-aggrandizing meaningless prose that actively deceives on the accomplishment and status of the thing
Then it's not "human creativity" as far as I'm concerned, or at least not one that I want to actively encourage (and in fact, as I mentioned, I want to actively discourage / not partake in).
In other words, I'm not saying AI should be doing the kind of things exemplified in that article rather than humans. I'm saying I don't want to see / partake those kinds of things [if not quite "they shouldn't exist":], and it's partially because they don't contribute any human creativity, as far as I'm concerned. That's very different from "not seeing value in human creativity", so I think we may have misunderstood each other there?
I find myself feeling some of the same things you describe. I don't really relate with the synth/formulaic music part, to me that's just another interesting form of human expression. But I guess that just goes to show how we all see the line in very different places; I think even my own opinions on this are sometimes inconsistent with each other.
But you're right, we probably misunderstood each other there. You definitely won the argument though :)
It doesn’t replace it, humans can always do art for self enrichment and fulfillment, just like the vast majority of artists were doing before image AI hit the scene, including the vast majority that thought they could exchange time for food and shelter this way and did not.
Creativity has nothing to do with professional aspiration and entertaining the humans for transactions.
This has at least two virtues that the Ravenchord appears not to have:
1) Mann actually built the piano! No mere rendering, this guy got his hands dirty, did trial and error and reverse engineering and built something real.
2) The project wasn't merely aesthetic, it was in pursuit of seeing how a different build could affect the sound of the instrument
I wonder how he did those absolutely massive castings, those would be a serious challenge even for someone that is already experienced due to the forces acting on them and the risk of warp / cavities.
I'm partial to the Bosendorfer Imperial for booming bass sounds (and, in theory, you can actually but one), but the Alexander piano is a very cool experiment.
I've played a couple of Bosendorfers including an Imperial and the best I can describe it is that the lower end of the standard 88 keys produce very clean, solid bass sound and don't "fart". It's less about "booming" and more about just a very clean bass sound.
The extra keys below the 88 do go into bass-fart territory, though. (For those who don't know, Bosendorfer Imperials have 97 keys, the extra ones all going deeper into the low range).
> there is an optional subtle light behind each string that illuminates as the hammers strike.
> activated by solenoids
Professional pianist here. Undoubtedly the toy illumination concept may be useful to someone; that’s fine. But they seem to be positioning this as a bespoke high-end instrument. I’m confused.
But replacing the action with solenoids? The double-escapement action of the modern grand piano is a thing of beauty. Reliable and nuanced; it’s irreplaceable. The tactile feedback, repetition rate, and feel offered by a well-regulated action is so essential to refined pianistic technique.
I wish them well; but I won’t hold my breath waiting for this to materialize. I’m not sure it should. Undoubtedly there is room still to innovate in piano design. Beethoven himself was closely allied with designers and manufacturers of the day after all. But LEDs in the style of gaming computers and solenoids?
I think the LEDs are a nice option to have. Piano bars sometimes have big mirrors suspended over the stage so you can see the player’s hands; this is a much more flexible way to achieve a similar effect.
The solenoids though…. Oof. To your point, pressing a piano key is so much more than a binary on/off. Digital keyboards are quite good, but still different. It should certainly be possible to make a version of this that works, but (1) binary solenoids ain’t it and (2) the result would be fundamentally different from a traditional piano.
Lights can be turned off if you don't like them: only the proposed trigger and solenoid action is worrying.
As a professional pianist, have you ever played this kind of instrument? How good are "weighted" keyboards? How good are electric (or, why not, pneumatic) actuators in stringed instruments?
I'm confused how you can make such a statement, are you a professional pianist? How much force you need can vary by individual instrument, and with the proper technique and assisted by gravity everything seems much easier on a grand to me.
A typical grand piano action works against gravity: the hammers are underneath the strings and are propelled upwards by a series of levers connected to the keys. On an upright, however, each hammer is balanced upright and needs only be propelled sideways. Therefore, it's harder work physically to play a grand piano than an upright; this is compensated by a higher maximum volume with a concert grand because of how much larger the resonator is.
A baby grand isn't to be much louder (if louder at all) than an a full-size upright, but might still have less sympathetic vibration if the strings don't cross as much as they would on an upright. However, sympathetic vibration isn't necessarily undesirable; I'm convinced that the the opening bars of Schubert's Wanderer fantasy (D. 760) was composed deliberately to emphasise the effect.
Modern concert grands almost universally have the double-escapement action, which allows notes to be played very rapidly. That said, you only get the advantage of the massive leverage when starting from a state where the key is completely released, so all subsequent notes take a lot more force to be made at the same volume as the first. There are some uprights with double-escapement, but the are plenty that don't have it either... a 3/4-size 'spinet' a hundred years old is unlikely to possess such a refined mechanism (along with missing loads of strings, to add insult to injury).
Piano keys are weighted, this is to standardize as much as possible the downward force required to produce a sound. The lower keys are typically weighted heavier. You can have light grands and heavy uprights, it all depends on regulation and construction details but typically not all that much on the hammers, though the big factor is that the gravity assist allows for faster repetitation (as well as the double escapement, but that is because it can catch the key closer to the string so the next (and further) stroke requires far less movement and time).
I don't understand what you mean by the possibility of making a 'light grand'. Surely no amount of weighting can get around the fact that it is harder to lift a object up against gravity than it is to move it sideways, all else being equal. As such, I would expect a grand to require more force than an upright of comparable quality and leverage. Please could you elaborate on this?
The latter half of your comment I would agree with entirely; I would enumerate the factors like this:
1. The hammer falls down to its resting position with grands. This allows it to return to its resting position faster, at the expense of greater force required to move the hammer.
2. The double-escapement action of grands allows the hammers to strike again without the key having been fully released. This increases the maximum rate at which the same note can be played in succession, but again at the expense of greater force required because of the lack of leverage when not using the whole distance of the action.
3. Double-escapement mechanisms can be found on uprights, but these are different from the traditional grand action and are exceedingly rare. (From a cursory search online, the only such upright I can find currently for sale is the Bechstein Concert 8.)
At the back of the keys in a piano (and in a grand) there are lead weights that determine how much will be added to the weight of the hammer.
These are usually recessed in a hole in the side of the key.
Typically you'll be around 50 grams, no matter whether upright or grand. But the action is substantially different in construction and that can have all kinds of effects on key response once it is moving. You can test this for yourself with some reference weights.
A '60' would be on the heavy side, a 40 or even lower would feel very light.
Black keys tend to be a bit lighter (and are differently positioned on the cantilever) due to their shorter length of travel so it all works out roughly the same in the end. Treble keys tend to be weighted slightly lighter than bass keys.
I don't have an action in pieces right now so I can't make a picture of what the side of a key looks like, but I'll see if I can't find one online.
Thank you for explaining. So what I think you are saying is that you can make a grand feel as light as a typical upright because the weights typically added to pianos outweigh the inherent weight of the hammers that the grand would add to the action, giving plenty of leeway to adjust the action.
Exactly. The weights (different for each key) plus the total mass of the action (also different for each key) then shows up as inertia as you try to move the key (and you will need some force to overcome any friction) and I think that is where you will find your real difference.
If you look at the sides of the key you see two gray circles, those are lead weights, and they, more than anything determine the balance and weight of the key. Note that there also is a weight on the near side of the key! The weights on bass keys will be a bit larger at the back than for the treble side, and the hammers are also a bit heavier. You can still tune a lot in the action, but another major factor is simply friction. If there is lots of play in the pin that the key rides on it can make the action feel 'loose' all the way to unplayable (because the key will rub the keys next to it), and if it rides too tight (or has been twisted out of true) it will work so hard against the felt that you need a lot of force to overcome the friction. This all shows up as perceived weight, but it really isn't. It's just friction.
Piano actions are fascinating, apparently simple but they are really small works of art for each and every key. All the parts have to work 'just so' and they then still have to be regulated to get a really even action. One really nasty little thing that can happen is that the pins in the various action bits are corroded, this can cause lots of friction in ways that can be hard to track down to any specific linkage.
You can balance a grand action to the point that a landing fly would have a good chance to produce a tone. You don't want it that light though: your fingers brushing the keys would already cause them to move, a bit of resistance works.
There are extremes, a famous concert pianist (for the life of me I can't remember which one) for instance had his piano set for super light touch, so light that others found his instrument(s) unplayable. And on the other end there is the mechanical church organ, with keys so heavy that playing anything at all turns into a physical work-out. Talk about 'strong fingers required', you need to be in top physical shape for that.
That light action for pianos sounds interesting, but I replied[1] to your other comment so maybe we should keep the discussion on that thread.
As for organs on the other hand, I used to play a Victorian frankenstein^W 'hybrid' tracker organ in my local church (sadly now closed). The keys on that poor organ were certainly a work-out for the fingers, and of course got stiffer the more stops that were pulled out.
I personally believe that it is valuable to maintain these now-rare tracker organs for their historical merit - they were arguably the most complex machines ever created before the electronic digital computer took that title. However, when it comes to music, I'm not a purist: there is nothing about the stiffness of the keys inherent to the sound of a pipe organ, so I'm all for pneumatic control. Electronic keys also work well if care is taken to reduce the overall latency, as witness by the success of the Wurlitzer theatre organs.
[2]: 'Hybrid' this instance means an original nineteenth-century tracker mechanism, combined with a 20th century blower and an electronic organ invisibly integrated into the instrument. Actually, not so invisibly, as it frequently malfunctioned. There is also record of a pneumatic action somewhere, but I haven't located it myself.
I played the organ in Liepaja, it was amazing. I'd move there if I could just to help keep it in shape. And yes, those should be preserved, there isn't all that many of them left. And organ component manufacturers are going out of business as well (Laukhuff, recently :( ).
Ah, I've found the pianist: it's Horowitz (I mistakenly thought it was Rubinstein), read here for some fascinating bits of piano lore:
84" long, which judging from the images means the lowest bass string is around 44" long. That's equivalent to a relatively short cross-strung upright piano, so there's nothing particularly special about the string length (longer generally sounds better).
I wonder how well the sound board would resonate.
I wonder if you could improve it by stringing the bass strings right across behind the treble strings. You could fit longer strings that way.
The hammers get further down the strings as you go. That's kind of normal but it's a bit different to normal here. Might affect the sound in some interesting way.
----
Here are some more links if you'd like to see other "radical redesigns of the piano" (and these ones have actually been built):
Osmose looks great but don’t seem to be for general sale?
I suspect this sort of expanded polyphonic aftertouch will become commonplace in the future - my first exposure to the world of synths was via the relatively cheap/affordable arturia minifreak which provides poly aftertouch which seemingly until recently was rarely available or was v expensive. Seems like a very natural progression for keyboard hardware - although using the extra modulation effectively seems to be lagging.
The Osmose seems to have spent a lot of effort on this aspect. Curious how you use it? As a live solo instrument? Looks like trying to exploit an instrument like this using a traditional DAW would be a nightmare.
The presets make really good use of the poly-aftertouch, which is way more comfortable than on my Hydrasynth Explorer. For pitch bend/vibrato the Osmose relies on the sideways key motion.
Personally I'm a long-time piano player just lately getting into synths and recording, so I'm not sure how I'll use it exactly. But I'm envisioning uses similar to lead electric guitars, or expressive acoustic instruments. Or dialing down the pitch bend sensitivity and using it like Vangelis used the CS-80.
> That's equivalent to a relatively short cross-strung upright piano
Not being familiar with piano configurations and sizes I was wondering indeed how one could squeeze the "real piano" strings into such a small space. Apparently you can't :-)
This does not appear to be a "radical" redesign, it looks quite similar to a regular piano.
I would love to see different key arrangements connected to regular hammers and strings, allowing for a wider span for each hand, opening a new era of virtuosism. Something akin to the buttons of a chromatic accordion [0], but with rectangular piano-like keys. We are used to the common arrangement of white and black keys centered around the major C scale, but this is just an arbitrary choice.
It is radically good-looking (for some tastes) but radically impractical, probably because it is a design exercise made without any particular interest or competence for what makes a piano actually work well.
I don't see a word about novel designs that allow fitting the mechanisms that are normally spread along the keyboard, with ample room along and below each string and vertically moving parts, into the small hub of the spiral, with oblique and all different movement directions; making this thing sound as well as a vertical piano with similar strings should be considered wishful thinking.
Making those three rendered pedals do something seems also especially challenging.
Honestly a very cool design, but the choice of solenoids (more broadly, the choice to make it "fly-by-wire") feels to me like it removes an important element of the operation.
To look at the performer and the strings, there are clavichords. Vastly easier to build, and presumably suitable for guitar-like pickups and electronic amplification.
How are they too wide? Are you referring to the hand size differential between us mortals and people like Rachmaninoff? With narrower keys, he would have just written bigger chords.
For those wanting a 20 minute video on this topic, there is a video[0] made by the professional pianist / youtuber "We Are One" (previously MusicalBasics) on this very subject which is very informative
Fuck this very idea from the bottom of my heart. I'm a grown-ass man, fully functional in all aspects of life, who can't reach an octave comfortably, just like most female players and a lot of Asian males. The piano keyboard is objectively too big for most players in the world, period.
As a piano player from young age, for a while recently I thought there was something unfair about piano key sizes: if keyboards were narrower, wouldn’t it be objectively easier for more people? Besides, my fingers are thin, why do I need all that area?
Lately, I’m tending to think otherwise.
If narrower keyboards were to start being manufactured, people with longer fingers would just write arrangements with wider chords for these keys—and people with shorter fingers would be none the better. We cannot demand progressively smaller and smaller keyboards forever.
Furthermore, upon reflection I realized that for some techniques, especially those involving wide staccato jumps, larger keys are actually beneficial even for people with shorter fingers—as you throw hands around, larger keys provide more forgiving “landing pads”, allowing for higher speed than if you had to be precise so as not to accidentally trigger a neighbouring key. In fact, I suspect smaller keys would benefit one or two specific scenarios (e.g., a wide one-hand chord), while being detrimental to other techniques.
All in all, I do not believe it is a handicap. Pick arrangements that work for you. Adapt arrangements to your physique. Narrower range chords do not even remotely imply unimpressive arrangements! Yes, if there is something you want to but cannot physically play, that sucks—but we all have to pick our battles; I have seen pianists with less reach than me demonstrate mind-blowing technique that is beyond my capabilities, and by now I guess will be so forever.
I would assume that the vast majority of piano playing happens with older repertoire. Narrower keyboards can maybe make pieces by the likes Rachmaninoff accessible to more people.
Right there with you. I have relatively large hands, and I still prefer playing my 7/8ths-scale electric guitar for the easier reach. It's a noticeably lesser amount of strain on my wrists and joints.
By playing a shorter scale guitar you sacrifice some of the tone and the ability to play on the highest frets.
Unlike size, stretching can be improved by exercise by A LOT. I use size S (male) gloves myself, yet I can reach C-E on the piano and the 11th fret from a 5th fret barre on a 25.5 scale guitar.
For me, I don't care about ultimate tone, or better access to the highest notes.
I simply want to enjoy playing as much as possible, and make my friends smile while we share the experience. Shorter-scaled guitars are, for me, part of what lets that happen.
A lifetime of practice on the wrong size leads to injury and the disappointment that maybe you as a pianist just will never get to play more technical pieces.
Both are wrong.
This is very cool; I like it a lot. It's visually striking, and if it's sonically striking / it works, I could see it in people's homes or in concert halls. The article says it's "lighter, easier to move, and more convenient to fit in the home." Might be a piano game-changer if true, but given that there is no video, Whipsaw doesn't seem to have built it. Maybe that's the next step in the works.
And yes, there's a decent bit of "artist's statement" patois in the article, but that's sort of expected from designers.
The Keybird X1 (https://keybird-instruments.com/) is a more functional redesign - an acoustic which can be transported as two pieces of 43 and 16 kg and can be tuned by the owner. This can be purchased now.
I thought it would be a new keyboard layout, like the Jankó keyboard [0] which lets you play all twelve keys the same way, similar to a guitar fretboard. Sort of like Dvorak for piano. We need more designs like that!
A guitar fretboard allows you to play all keys the same, but not by default (unless you limit yourself to the bottom four strings), because of the irregular major third between the G and B strings.
If you want only one fingering you'll need to use a regular tuning:
It looks like it only exists in CAD and fancy renders... Given that the most important aspects of a piano is both how it sounds and how the action feels to the player (with asthetics being nice but much lower down the list), yeah this is useless until it's built and shown to sound any good or play well!
Sort of agree with the grouchy old fart take here, except a) it really is lovely to look at and b) I'm very curious to know how it would sound. If you didn't want to build it, how would you approach modeling the sound? I'm not even sure where I would start.
Not clear from TFA what the solenoids are for. Also, there doesn't seem to be any kind of soundboard; it seems the sound made by the vibrating strings is supposed to be enough.
It has LEDs on the strings; so perhaps it also has pickups, and is designed to be plugged into an amp?
Would it be too much to ask that the octave width of the keyboard be reduced to 6" or even 5.5" so that women and men with smaller hands could play with less discomfort, rather than being based on what someone in the 16th century preferred.
Until there's any proof it actually exists and is playable, it's a "concept" of an upright piano with unimaginably complicated hammer mechanics. But hey, LED lights.
Good on people for playing, imagining, considering, wondering, but I wish there were a tag or some way for me to avoid them, or just a more upfront admission of what it is. They always start so serious, full of world problem solving proclamations in present tense ("this solves / this will replace / enabling " etc) and only by mid way do you realize there's nothing there there :-/