Rescaling

[Ron Nossaman]

>Part of the point of my original point was (or was supposed to be) that if 
>there is a recipe for a potentially great and unique piano I question 
>whether or not we should change the recipe.  The fact that the recipe also 
>turns out mediocre pianos doesn't necessarily indicate that the recipe is 
>flawed, but that the execution of the recipe is somehow flawed. 

Hi Phil,
It's that "Somehow" flawed execution that is at the core of the
philosophical differences here. I, like probably everyone else, used to try
to adhere as closely as I could to the original designs of the pianos I
worked on. I found too often that I was disappointed in the results, and
that the musicality of my efforts was as undependable as those of the
efforts of the current manufacturers of new pianos of the same name. Some
sounded very nice, and some not so nice, with no obvious reasons for the
differences. Somehow, I didn't consider reproducing the somewhat random
results achieved by the current manufacturer to be the level of success I
was looking for. After Del kicked us in the slats and got some of us
thinking about reconsidering our automatic acceptance of the basic design
details, a lot of these deep dark mysteries of why one piano sounds good
and another doesn't, started making a whole lot of sense. The problems
start on the drawing board at least as often as they do on the assembly
floor. When the physics and the math available to us now can show us that
some design aspect requires physical performance of a material at the
extreme limit of it's capability, and we can both see the physical, and
hear the tonal result of this design practice, how can we in good
conscience not try to improve the dependability and longevity of the
results by changing the design? When a certain duplex configuration is a
continual problem to a large percentage of the technical community, why
shouldn't we fix it when we get the chance? I honestly don't understand the
reluctance to eliminate problems characteristic to a specific design
"feature" by simply refining the design with our new tools and
understanding. Are we to leave the cause alone and pursue a better finesse
against the effect? Isn't that precisely what has been done ineffectually
for too many years already? Terrific sounding pianos can still be produced
with rewhatevering, but with fewer disappointments, to a higher average
musical standard, and without the characteristic problems inherent in the
revered and fiercely defended designs that inevitably produce a much wider
spectrum of tonal result - from wonderful to awful. What it takes is not
being willing to accept the causes as something we're stuck with because of
the original design intent. If that's what your mention of this design
convergence resulting in all the pianos sounding alike was referring to,
then I'm all for it. When all the piano designs and
manufacturing/remanufacturing processes have all the pianos sounding
terrific (not all the same, but generally much better), then the
redesigners can try to kick it up another notch. I'm all for that too.  


> I think we 
>should concentrate on understanding what about the execution of the recipe 
>results in some mediocre pianos and concentrate on fixing that rather than 
>changing the recipe.

>If Steinway B number 1 sounds great and Steinway B number 2 sounds so-so why 
>do we think that it's necessary to change the scale, change the bridge 
>design, change the soundboard design, etc. in order to get piano number 2 to 
>sound good.  

When we try to understand what about the design makes the result so very
difficult to predict, and adjust the recipe away from the edge of material
limitations and unwanted interactions, we can make execution of the recipe
much more dependable, reproducible, and eliminate most of the Voodoo and
mystery. There are very definite and basic cause and effect relationships
that don't have much to do with a lot of what us rebuilders fuss over.


>Piano number 1 sounds great with the original design.  I would 
>take this to mean that the design is not the problem, it's the execution of 
>the design.  

That's fine when pianos 2 through 17000000 sound great too, except for
237146, when the glue machine ran dry and nobody noticed. It's probably a
pretty good design. How about when one out of three, or ten, or twenty
sounds pretty lousy, with all sorts of levels in between? The factory folks
aren't deviating much from their routines from piano to piano. They can't
and still survive, so what is it that's so touchy about building certain
pianos that consecutive instruments off the manufacturer's line (much less
the rebuilder's shop) have such widely different characteristics? It's
because the designs require too much of the materials and assembly processes. 



>If we as rebuilders can figure out the execution part and get 
>that right then the piano should sound great after being rebuilt, which was 
>the point of rebuilding it in the first place.  We then have respected the 
>maker's intent and provided an invaluable service to the owner of the piano. 
> In the process what we've learned and try to share should also be 
>invaluable to makers of new pianos if they choose to listen.
>
>Phil Ford

All things considered that I'm aware need consideration, I'll have to
presume the maker's intent was to make money first, then music. The maker
has already made his money, so I think it is my responsibility to restore,
and improve where I am able, the instrument's capacity for making music,
not the instrument. Didn't you ever add on a room addition, modify a tool,
or edit someone else's copy? The design is good only so far as it
dependably does the job. The result is still the important part, and I'll
modefile for as long as I can if it improves the product.


Ron N