Hi Ed.... this is really an interesting pair of comments, given the fact that both designers are very much in agreement with each other on a host of design issues. My own impression was that both pianos were wonderful, and especially the Nossaman instrument reflected very closely the kind of sound I'd expected from him given his many comments relative to the kind of sound preferences he is after. Dark, and moody. To my own mind I thought it was a bit too dark.... the fatness of sound I believe he was after in the lower tenor was marvelous as long as the instrument wasnt pushed to hard... but at levels of play where some pianos will start to sound distorted and crashy... that same fatness took on a character of tubbyness to me. Still... I loved the instrument and I told him so on the two occasions I had a chance to in Rochester. The Overs instrument on the other hand was probably the finest executed peice of piano manufacturing I've ever layed eyes on. I found its treble area to be very comparable to the Nossaman instrument... something I believe should not suprise given the large area of agreement these two fine designer/rebuilders have on so many issues. The transition to the bass and the bass itself however revealed a very different instrument. Much more power and brightness... which no doubt he was after. I agree with a few other posters that the Overs piano was the hands down winner on all counts. An interesting (to me at any rate) side note to the Overs design was my introduction to the new Petrof 220 which probably was in no insignificant degree influenced by Overs design philosphies. At any rate.... that same wonderful chime-ish clear and distinct treble characteristice that I perceived in the Overs instrument was immediately evident. I understand that the Petrof people were in Australia and in particular interested in the Overs endeavors during the later stages of their own design process for the new 220. But back to your post... the rest looks like good reading... and I will take my time on it... but your openings just go to show how wide indeed our tastes, preferences... and in the end I suppose our personal boarders of acceptance go. Cheers, and thanks for a fine innlegg. RicB Greetings, Whew, lotta talk about hammers, manufacturers, and opinions. It is obvious that there is no one voice out there. To address a couple of individual things: The Nossman B at Rochester was one of the finest sounding pianos I have ever heard. It sounded remarkably like one of my older customer's 1936 B, which was equipped with new factory hammers in 1949 and only lightly played since. Both have great sustain and clarity. Inre the Overs piano, someone wrote: > To give the perspective of my own personal taste to that opinion, my > favorite piano in that showcase was Ron Overs', hands down. << I couldn't stand that piano the first time I played it. It sounded thin and stringy. THEN, as the days went past and Ron voiced the piano, I heard the tone fill out, becoming round and full, without losing the edge. The tone became malleable and big. (more about that, later). It was great to hear the development of tone from the raw hammer to the fully voiced one. The difference is night and day and by the time the convention ended, that piano had everything one could want in a piano!
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC