In the final two concerts of the series, ‘behind the screens’ tests were conducted after an interval. In these tests the pianos were positioned behind screens, out of view of the audiences to test whether a majority of the audiences could identify the sounds of the Stuart and Steinway without the aid of visual and directional stimuli. The audience responses of the ‘behind the screens’ tests were not as conclusive as the responses whilst the pianos were in view. The manner in which the qualities of tone were affected by the screens will be examined later in this chapter. The inconclusive result could support A.Galembo’s research project²⁵³ that found experienced pianists had difficulty identifying the sounds of three, out of view, different makes of pianos whilst seated in the audience. The pianists had previously played each piano, and were confident they could identify the sounds without having visual contact with the instruments. The pianists did however identify each instrument through touch in a second test, whilst playing the pianos blindfolded.

The compiled tallies of the responses of the Piano Contrasts concerts indicated that how the pianists played each piano influenced the audience evaluations. 85% of participants responded that Simon Tedeschi’s pianistic style was more suited to the Steinway sound, and 83% of participants stated Kevin Hunt’s pianistic style was more suited to the Stuart sound. Due to the known stylistic backgrounds of each pianist the perception that Kevin Hunt’s pianism was more suited to the Stuart piano sound is associated with another audience perception, that 69% of the audiences reported that the Stuart sound suited jazz style more than the Steinway sound. Psychophysical elements are therefore recognized as being influentially associated with the pianists’ playing styles, how they react to the sounds of the pianos in the acoustics of the space and their subjective interpretations of repertoire style, which in turn influence the audience evaluations of the piano sounds.

In evaluating people’s perceptions of tone quality, the sound qualities of the instruments as well the human application and interpretation of sound are examined in this chapter, as combined elements of tone quality, based on the writing of timbre analysts W.Brent²⁵⁴ and J.Roederer.²⁵⁵ The results of the audience responses of the Piano Contrasts concert-surveys follow a review of terminology used in studies and articles of sound quality identification. The temporal and spectral qualities of the Stuart and Steinway tones established in chapter four serve to provide a platform of physical evidence about the sonic qualities of both instruments as the sounds are interpreted by pianists in performances and evaluated by audiences. This chapter examines sound quality in both its physical and psychophysical dimensions.

²⁵³Alexander Galembo, “Perception of musical instrument by performer and listener (with application to the piano).” In        Proceedings of the International Workshop on Human Supervision and Control in Engineering and Music, (Germany:
University of Kassel, Human-Machine-Systems Laboratory, 2001) 257-266.   
http://nagasm.org/ASL/workshop/engineering-music/individu/galealex/gaalproc.html
^{254     2}Brent,”Physical and Perceptual Aspects of Percussive Timbre”
^{255     11} Roederer, The Physics and Psychophysics of Music.