Grotrian 275 grand

[Delwin D Fandrich]

-----Original Message-----
From: D C AL CODA <kenhale@dcalcoda.com>
To: pianotech@ptg.org <pianotech@ptg.org>
Date: Thursday, July 01, 1999 9:59 AM
Subject: Grotrian 275 grand


>Hi,
>. . . . .
>The 275 has recently been voiced up quite a bit, with juice, in order to
>give it more power, but it seems to be too brassy/brilliant to the point of
>being described as tinny or harsh. My sense is that in the attempt to gain
>power, it is too close to the edge of being too brilliant. Pianists are
>describing it as "a little too brilliant, tinny, harsh", one pianist who
>travels quite a bit said that Grotrians tend to be too tinny in the
>treble.  The piano certainly has more power, but when pushed (played big
>and hard and loud), it gets too brassy too quickly.


It is a common misconception that one can add more "power" to a piano by
voicing and/or adding lacquer or some other chemical hardener to the hammer.
None of these processes actually add any power to the acoustic output of the
piano.  They simply change the make up of the energy spectrum set up in the
string.  That is, the energy spectrum set up in a string by an impact from a
relatively soft hammer will have relatively more energy in the lower
partials relatively less in the higher partials.  An impact by a harder
hammer will set up more energy in the higher partials and somewhat less in
the lower partials.  The actual amount of sound energy produced by either
won't alter much, if at all.

The harder hammer will appear to produce a louder sound only because the
amount of energy in the initial impact sound will be greater and more of it
will be in a higher frequency range.  Since energy in the higher partials
transfers into the soundboard and dissipates at a more rapid rate, this
change comes at the expense of sustain.  It also comes at the expense of
tone quality.  So you pays your money and you takes your choice -- there
ain't no such thing as a free lunch here.

In general, the tone quality of modern pianos has become harder and brighter
over the past couple of decades.  In part this is because it is easier to
build pianos in very high production this way.  Since it is an axium of
marketing strategy that when one is confronted with a "bug" or a design
defect the best solution is to call it a "feature" and raise the price, a
great deal of marketing effort has gone into convincing the piano world that
this is all a very good thing.  Sadly, this doesn't really make it so and
much musicality has been lost along the way.


>So, at least a couple of my questions are:
>
>Has anyone been successful in getting this piano to be more powerful (along
>the lines of the Steinway), without overstepping the boundary into
tinny-ville?

Yes, this could be done.  All you would have to do is change the stringing
scale to match that of the Steinway, replace the soundboard with one
designed and shaped like that of the Steinway, install and shape and heavily
lacquer/acrylic a set of Steinway hammers, etc.  You might have to do a bit
of rim work and plate work as well.  It might be simpler and cheaper in the
long run to simply buy a Steinway.


>Is the Grotrian better at that round-mellow (European) tone, rather than
>trying to compete with the Steinway sound? How's that for a generality (but
>it does seem to me that the Steinway Concert Grand is the benchmark for
>many people's ears:-)?

Yes.  In my opinion at least, it will be better to let the Grotrian be a
Grotrian and spend your effort trying to educate the pianist to appreciate
the value of tonal subtlies.  And as far as the Steinway Concert Grand being
the benchmark for piano sound...what year were you refering to?  The tone
quality of the SCG being produced today bears little resemblence to that of
just a few years ago and even less to that of some decades back.  It would
appear that these pianos are now trying to emulate the hard, brassy sound
that the marketing people seem to like so much.  Unfortunately those tastes
don't always have much to do with music.


-- ddf