S&S Sound - 2

[William Schneider]

I'm new to this list, and apparently have missed the beginning of this
discussion. However, because I have a few opinions on the subject, I'll risk
airing them.

I agree that in no era has Steinway quality been fault free, and that the
1960's through the early 1980's was the worst for quality. The work was sloppy
in several regards, and just about everybody probably knows the obvious faults
prevalent then. But I don't think the soundboards either then or now are
uniformly the tonal culprit, although, to be sure an occasional dud got
through. I like to think of the indroduction, in the 1930's, of the
diaphragmatic board as marking a change in the musical concept of the
instrument, not a loss of quality. (Perhaps more on that when I have more time)

I think today's Steinways mostly have good boards, and potentially great sound.
But I'm hearing some disappointing pianos, both in person and on recordings.
Yes, the hammers could be better, but they could be worse. The latest voicing
recommendations seem to be the problem, not because there aren't cases where
they are legitimate, but because generally they go contrary to the needs
of the Steinway hammer. I refer to voicing "Method B", page 67 in the new
Technical Reference Guide. Ironically, applying lacquer, or whatever, to the
crown of the hammer was strongly warned against in the older service manual. I
know well that there are some conditions under which the practice is good, even
necessary.

But the easy delights of getting a lot of sound fast are fraught with danger.
The most insidious thing is the likely creation of an inverse relationship
between brightness and power, ie. fff playing duller than mf playing. The fact
that such an inverse relationship is inherently unmusical is almost beside the
point. A secondary effect is a lack of sustain at higher dynamic levels, with a
hint of tubbiness.

It's easy to surmise that this is caused by the bellywork. Playing a
crescendo on repeated note will diagnose this very common problem. I think it's
fair to note that both factory and field technicians who use "Method B"
routinely are equally to blame, if they create the inverse brightness/power
curve thereby. It seems to me that the place to apply hardener is where the
hammers need it, not by following either Method A or B.

There, I've stuck my neck out, and it's been fun. What do you think?

Bill Schneider
schnei78@pilot.msu.edu



 >
> Thanks to those of you who responded to my post last weekend
on the > quality of Steinway grand and baby-grand pianos.   You seem to agree
> that their quality has not been the greatest the last 20 or 30 years,
> and I=92m happy to hear the view that it has now bounced back.   I=92d li=
> ke
> to elicit your comments on why the sound quality in particular suffered
> (see my comments below), and if you think that it has now improved along
> with the improvements in mechanical aspects.  (I personally feel that
> the quality of its sound still needs improvement.)
>
> Why my interest?  I feel that S&S quality is important to all our
> careers, and that it is incumbent on us to try to help them improve
> their product and thereby help ourselves.  As I mentioned in my last
> post, I have customers who want to eventually move up to a Steinway -
> they are great pianos.  Which should my customers buy? -- new, or used? =
>
> In my opinion, you have to pick and choose very carefully over either a
> new model or used models made in the last 20-30 years.  It would be nice
> to go back to the days of uniformly excellent quality.
>
> 1) I feel that the Steinway New York hammers need improvement.  Steinway
> technicians describe them in meetings I have been to as being of low
> density, and therefore needing to be juiced/hardened to build up
> adequate power and quality of sound.  As I mentioned in my last post, I
> too often find the resulting treble sound to be thin, shallow, tinny,
> and/or bright -  with  voicing / tone regulation unable to compensate. =
>
> Perhaps a higher density of felt would help, such as the Hamburg
> Steinway hammers (which I use for replacements) which I believe are made
> by Renner, alleviating the need for the degree of artificial hardening
> done at the factory.  =
>
>
> 2) I think problems with sound quality result from the modern methods
> used for installation of the bridges and soundboard.  If a copy of a
> Steinway memorandum that I received several years ago from Michael
> Yeager, Waterford, Connecticut, is correct, presumably written by Peter
> Mohr in 1987 and sent to Bill Davis, Steinway changed its method of
> achieving the bridge height and installing the soundboard in 1959.  It
> sounds like the old method was far more labor intensive.  A couple parts
> of the memo [again, if my copy is accurate] read: "In 1959 this method
> was changed to our current method to make the belly operation easier. =
>
> =2E...  By doing this there is no tension build into the soundboard.  Thi=
> s
> causes loss of bearing and poor tone where its needed most [the
> treble].  ..."   And further  "In my opinion this matter is probably the
> single most important change that we can make to improve the tone.  The
> experiments [conducted in 1979 and 1980] have been completed, results
> showed excellent tonal qualities with major improvement. ...".  (Items
> in braces are my comments from other parts of the memo.) =
>
>
>  Norman Brickman
>