[CAUT] seasonal SB failure

[Chris Solliday]

I'd just like to interject that the pianos with Piano Life Saver Systems
installed seem to sound better all the time and the ones suffering through
the seasons without help have all the variance everyone is describing. I
mostly can compare Steinways and Yamahas and a few Bosendorfers but they all
tell me the same thing. In two situations in two different schools there is
an interesting twist. The Steinway D's are stored in climate control but
brought out and used for concerts only in the uncontrolled halls. One has a
Hamburg C as a companion with a System installed and one has a NY B and a
Yamaha C-3 with systems installed. These are generally considered the
rehearsal or accompaniment instruments but I am sure the tone and the
stability are better and I have seen/heard this over many years. I also have
to do more tamping down of bridge pins and strings on the uncontrolled
pianos. I can't prove nuthin' mind ya but I'm jus sayin'
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm@unm.edu>
To: "caut" <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] seasonal SB failure


>     Just to follow up with a little detail on my rather simplistic
statement
> about tone and low RH earlier, I took some measurements and listened with
a
> bit more care today. I still kind of stand behind the opinion that even at
> 10%, many of my concert pianos are within acceptable parameters. But here
is
> some more detail:
> A) Number one recital hall concert D, five years old. Crown: none in mid
to
> high treble. Very little in tenor. None in bass. Downbearing very little
to
> none overall in mid to high treble, though that can be parsed to be
positive
> front and negative rear bearing. A bit of positive bearing in tenor.
Bottom
> of tenor bridge and bass bridge, negative front and positive rear. Still
> sounds pretty good. Nice sustain, reasonably good power. A piano that most
> everyone tends to like and to compliment.
> B) Number two recital hall concert D, 25 years old. Similar crown
condition,
> though it has more crown in the tenor than #1. Downbearing similar
pattern,
> though much less uniform: some negative, some positive within sections.
> Tonal qualities: well, it has always had issues in octaves 5 and 6, and
they
> are a bit more pronounced as it has gotten older. But it is quite usable
as
> a chamber instrument. I always thought when this piano was #1, trying to
be
> brash, that it would sound better voiced mellow, and It turned out that
way.
> Yes, it lacks power. Maybe the dry has contributed. Yes, the decay is more
> rapid than I would like, but not unbearably so. It was a problematic
> instrument from the first: apparently the prof who went to NYC to select
it
> swore they sent the wrong instrument.
> C) 20 year old D, in 2000 seat hall. Not the most powerful instrument I
have
> ever run into, but handles concerto work just fine. I wasn't able to get
in
> and check just now, but downbearing has tended to be positive throughout
> when I have measured, and octaves 5 and 6 are, though not my ideal, quite
> reasonable and able to hold there own.
> D) A nearly brand new D in a new venue, with DC system (2 tank) installed
on
> delivery and kept plugged in (I don't service it often enough to swear
that
> they keep it watered and pads attended to, but they seem like
conscientious
> folks). Has very rapid decay in octaves 5 and 6, bad sustain. I prefer my
#2
> above. Presumably the EMC in this piano is at a good place. I haven't had
> the time to check crown and bearing.
>     I could list more, but the pattern is: there is no pattern, at least
no
> simple one, cause and effect, relative to basement level RH. I can't say
> with assurance whether the pianos sound significantly different in the
late
> summer/early fall when RH is in the 50-60% range. It's hard to keep a
tonal
> memory that long, and I'm so busy cranking down pitch during that season
> that it's hard to find time and a relaxed ear to listen well. But at any
> rate, the difference isn't, to my ear, _very obvious_. Again, though, I
have
> the vast majority of my experience right here in the bone dry desert, so I
> am comparing pianos within my area. I may have lower expectations than
many
> of you.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>
>
> On 2/28/06 3:08 PM, "Fred Sturm" <fssturm@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ron,
> > I don't want anyone to make a lot of the opinion I expressed (pianos
> > at 10% RH "sound just fine to me"). But I think I have enough
> > experience listening to pianos in wetter climes (at nationals, etc.)
> > that if below 20% meant a complete disaster, my ears/musical sense
> > would complain. I'm not sure I'm the best judge, as I approach pianos
> > as a pianist, meaning I adjust to what's there and make what I can of
> > it. I don't have a lot of pre-conceptions that I want to have
> > fulfilled. OTOH, there is a bottom line of resonance, power, sustain
> > that I'd miss if it were really missing, at least I think so.
> > My experience has led me to take with a grain of salt claims that
> > flat boards and zero DB mean a piano is unusable. I don't find it so,
> > personally. But I'm just one guy out here with my own limited
> > experiences and acuity.
> > Regards,
> > Fred Sturm
> > University of New Mexico
> > fssturm@unm.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>