Why not the piano as a reference for bass


I see a lot of commentary/reviews on a systems bass response that all seem to hinge on the 41 hz double bass and such range.  At 27.5 the A0 note on a piano seems a better point to judge.  Lots of piano in normal music vs say an organ note.  I know when I feel that deep chord played it is one of things I enjoy about listening the most!  Was listening to Wish you were here live and the piano was sublime.

So is it more of how much musical energy is perceived in the 40 hz range or what that makes this more of a reproduction benchmark?

I welcome your input!

New Joe Bonamassa out BTW!

guscreek

Testing bass is not testing a deep frequency but a lot of  band range interacting...

If an audio system/room do not reproduce  well a piano you had lost your money....

To test bass i use preferably piano, tuba, and organ ..

Re piano. I rediscovered an album from long ago that I found in the cut-out bin of a long-forgotten record store. The title is "audio symphony", Check up your sounds Vol, 1. It was produced by RCA Japan in 1976 and distributed by Audio Technica.

It has a 14 page insert describing all the equipment used and even includes the music score sheets. Although it goes into minute detail of the equipment used it does not describe the piano. Notable is the use of an Ampex 440c and Studer A-80MK II reel to reel. Both running at 30 ips.

The sound quality is astoundingly good with dynamic range and quit background even on my modest system, The bass quality of the piano is remarkably good but I would agree that it is not the best test of a systems bass agility and depth.

Also, as someone else mentioned bowed string bass (in this case a trio playing in unison) is also a pretty good measure,

Could you name the artist in this album ?

Effectively  the viol is also an instrument useful to test bass rendition...

Re piano. I rediscovered an album from long ago that I found in the cut-out bin of a long-forgotten record store. The title is "audio symphony", Check up your sounds Vol, 1. It was produced by RCA Japan in 1976 and distributed by Audio Technica.

All I can tell you is what my ears tell me.  For reference in my own listening room I have recently replaced a Yamaha C7 with a Clavinova.  I did this because to my ears the difference when the C7 is in tune was indistinguishable from the Clavinova and more importantly for me, the latter is always in tune.  I am not a pianist, however, but rather a drummer for whom the piano is a means to an end.  YRMV.

This is a most interesting discussion.  Ruminating further about past experiences is pertinent.  First a disclaimer.  I can hear the difference between any two pianos.  Let me explain.  When I have gone to the Steinway studio, something I have done in Seattle, San Francisco, and NYC in years go by, I have easily been able to distinguish the sound of not only say a B from a D, but B1 from B2 from B3, and D1 from D2 etc.  Or in another setting, upon entering a hall, without looking I have been able over the years to tell if the piano is a Mason & Hamlin (a favorite of mine) or a Baldwin etc.  With that as a back drop, in my misspent youth I tried (and failed miserably) to record pianos.  Choice of mics, mic placement, mic distance, room acoustics, all muck things up.  These factors make good piano recordings a rare and precious commodity.  But if you find a good one, and there are good ones, IMHO, there is no finer recording to judge your system than a good piano recording.  From top to bottom.  Bass included.