Hello Phil,
Thanks for a thoughtful response. Some comments are interspersed below:
Phillip Ford wrote:
> >Hello David,
> > You do an admirable job in organizing and following the soundboard
> >related theme as it has proceeded over time. My responses along these
> >lines were not a function of temper then, nor or they now, although, at
> >times I did experience real frustration at the dogmatic shouting and,
> >apparent, unwillingess or incapacity of the pressurists to rationally
> >advocate the very views they claim to be supersedent of all others - in
> >general there was little in the way of argument and much in the way of
> >mere assertion - a kind of dogmatic claim that it is this way because It
> >Is.
>
> Robin,
> As I saw it, you were questioning some very basic assumptions about the way things work. I believe that you acknowledged that your views were counter to those of (at least some) people with credentials on the subject (university professors, authors of textbooks, etc.). When this happens, I think it should come as no surprise if some people are incredulous or antagonistic. When long held basic assumptions or beliefs are questioned it seems natural to me that the initial response would be 'because that's
> the way it is'.
Actually, I don't think these assumptions you refer to have been around that long, or are universal, or are that basic, even though many may think so, as this entire subject in pianos has suffered from a dearth of investigation of the long history of the piano. As I said during the ongoing debate last year, a similar debate exists among researchers regarding the violin as concerns the loading of the bridge and soundboard by the strings. This is a far more investigated subject in violins than pianos. It is an equally "basic" assumption. In this case, a similar division of thought occurs, albeit, perhaps less vehement than here. It may be that there is some novelty in my urging similar methods of analysis for pianos, if so, I think it is simply because this entire subject has not been well analyzed but the "basic assumptions" you refer to are rather shaky. I have expressed some reasons why I think this is so. Others, I have no doubt, would arrive in time at similar
conclusions on this subject, or may have already, some of which are contained in the stress transduction model I advocated last year. If "Authority" is disturbed by an intellectual construct, then so be it. I daresay, similar arguments exist regarding other instruments in which a string drives a soundboard, although, I have no direct knowledge of this.
s doesn't necessarily make this response right or appropriate, but it does make it more understandable. It's also hard to offer much in the way of argument, since these things are usually taken as given by some authority, and used to build upon. If you were to say that you didn't believe that Newton's laws described behavior of objects around us I wouldn't be able to offer much in the way of argument about why I believe they're correct other than 'because that's the way it is'.
>
> > This may have been a matter of temper for others, as it frequently
> >appears to be when anything approaching soundboard behavior is
> >encountered on this list .......
>
> Yes. Many people feel strongly about this subject. It makes for lively discussion - perhaps too lively.
I enjoy lively discussion. Be that as it may, a discussion involves point and counterpoint, argument and counterargument. The method of argument, as best I can tell and with all due respect, of some, appears to be to ignore relevant factors rather than actively attempt to refute them and yet claim "scientific" authority.
>
> >.......nevertheless, whether I, or any other, no matter how informed they
> may
> >be, or at least consider themselves to be, agree or disagree with any
> >proposition or observation put forth here, which should be for
> >discussion, one should restrain the emotional instrusion which the
> >antagonistic responses larded with sarcasm, represents and which are
> >very common here on this particular subject.
>
> Agreed. In the discussions which David has catalogued in his post, there was plenty of sarcasm on both sides of the discussion.
>
> > The lack of substantive response......
>
> > Sure, we can all secretly believe we have reinvented the wheel with
> >"modern" methods and publicly claim so with loud protestations of
> >originality and superiority, but the end product is still likely to be
> >essentially circular, after all and most other wheels are going to
> >demonstrate a substantial similarity. I must say, that all efforts to
> >the contrary, when I see a wheel I am compelled for some strange set of
> >reasons to call it a wheel and when I am informed of a "new, modern"
> >wheel - well - it still looks like a wheel to me.
>
> Well, yes and no. Mouton and Ripple are in the end both red wines. To someone who doesn't know or care about wine there's not much difference(other than the price). To someone that feels passionately about wine and has spent years becoming attuned to its subtleties, there's a huge difference.
Precisely, and my own experience being what it is, I am forced to assert that the great pianos I have heard which have been numous, almost without exception, have original boards and the sound of new boards does not reach this characteristic kind of sound, at least for my ear, and I have heard many, many similar remarks from others. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of new pianos that have produced this kind of sound. Other participants on this list, I believe, have similar views and yet, restrain themselves from giving voice to such, probably, due to the typical badgering seen here on this subject.
> To me, a wheel is a wheel. To a wheel designer that's not the case. A subtle change which I wouldn't even notice is important to him. I think that many of us believe that subtle changes in soundboard design or
> construction can significantly affect the way a piano sounds, at least to our trained ears. And we care a lot about the way pianos sound, thus the heat of some of the discussions. I think that's part of the nature of a specialized forum like this.
Anybody that takes the trouble to subscribe to this list and contribute to it is likely to care about how pianos sound and be an admirer of the instrument. That subtle changes in soundboard design, or construction, as you say, affect the sound of the instrument who would dispute? The question is what are the result of such changes and are they better than the other results with which they can be compared? As regards soundboards, I doubt that any new board can produce the kind of sound that many older boards have in spite of what we as technicians routinely refer to a deficiencies - loss of crown, cracks, so-called killer octaves, etc. etc.
>
> >Similarly, I think
> >such is likely the case regarding soundboards using traditional methods
> >of construction, that is a bridge, ribs and solid flitches to lay up the
> >panel, and, particularly, those that are only claimed to be superior
> >but are not presented for actual evaluation.
>
> I agree that the proof of the pudding should be in the eating. We can discuss all we want. But until someone builds a piano using the principles put forth and it proves to be superior to what is already out there, then the discussions are only so much hot air.
>
> > If one has a better
> >mousetrap one should take it to the market, there to be rewarded not by
> >the feeble aplause of sycophancy but by the much more pleasant
> >experience of commercial success.
> > The measure of success in such a case will be the persistence and
> >profitablity of the product in the market not merely sarcastic,
> >derogatory commentary on the deficiencies of other, similar, products,
> >although, as we all know, this may facilitate sales to those who will
> >only later become aware of technical considerations.
>
> I wondered who said 'Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door', because I think that person was hopelessly deluded. I also wondered if that was even the correct quote. I looked it up, and as it turns out, that is the quote, and Ralph Waldo Emerson said it. There goes some of my respect for him. My experience has been that anyone with a better mousetrap will have to fight to get the world to take any notice, and if the world starts to take too much notice, the company making the existing mousetrap with huge market share will try to squash him, buy him out, or run him out of town. In my opinion, commercial success does not go hand in hand with technical excellence. Microsoft is hugely successful commercially. Few knowledgeable computer users would, I think, say that their products are technically or functionally superior to other products out there. And if some small upstart created a superior
> operating system, I don't think they would have a chance of competing against Microsoft in the marketplace.
> Also, a point that I think you may be trying to make, and which we often choose to ignore, is that pianos are built for and marketed to pianists (or would be pianists), not piano technicians. In the end, what we think about which companies ought to be successful or not is largely irrelevant, other than to the extent that we can convince pianists to agree with us.
>
> > No piano or other product, is, or has ever been perfect in either
> >design or execution and I am sure the traditional system is greatly
> >susceptible of improvement in every detail. Like it or not, the level
> >of quality in an instrument is determined, ultimately, by marketability
> >and not technical considerations or the manifold possibilites for
> >improvement.
>
> This I will agree with. For a company to be commercially successful it has to make some choices about quality and performance that it's willing to build in relative to the price point at which it's planning to sell. Some on the list are, I think, arguing that more quality or performance could be built in at the same price, if companies cared to do so.
I think I have made similar arguments, but the point is that they don't have to as the market itself is substantially different.
>
> > The survival in this country and elsewhere of certain
> >companies through the long decline of the industry brought on
> >fundamentally by changes in the market itself, indicates the delivery
> >of a successful product, however flawed, to the market, and chronic
> >bellyaching about the "design deficiencies" , "legacy shortcomings",
> >other maladies, real or not, and the loud representation of "new,
> >modern, superior" fixes represents only emotional baggage or
> >self-serving promotion when taken past a certain point. This point has
> >long since been past here, in my opinion.
> > I don't wish to be put in the position of defending the prominent
> >maker so much maligned here as there is much worthy of relentless
> >criticism some of which I have pointed out before, as those who have
> >read my previous post on this subject may remember, but, nevertheless,
> >the success of their method is demonstrated in their survival and wide
> >spread use of new product, and enduring utility of old product,
> >something that is, given some of their deficiencies of assembly, almost
> >a source of astonishment for me, at least for present production. But,
> >it is as it is.
>
> Steinway has made some amazing pianos. Some of the pianos that I have loved most have been Steinways. It would be the rare pianist who would not make the same statements. I think that some technicians who don't themselves play have a hard time believing this. Since they can't experience it for themselves they rely on things which they can experience or understand to make the evaluation. The soundboard's not made correctly, the numbers on the scaling chart don't look right, etc. to conclude that the pianos must not really be any good and that pianists are somehow being deceived by the mystique or reputation or marketing prowess of Steinway. The deficiencies that they point out may in fact be there, but they don't necessarily result in a piano that pianists don't like. Steinways are not without flaws, one being their consistency. Certainly, anyone who has experienced amazing Steinways has also experienced mediocre ones. And even the best of them have some qui!
This I thoroughly agree with. The proof is, ultimately, in the pudding and the pudding in this case, at least as far as I can see, is the sound and not loud claims made by various advocates or the many useful techniques of the soundboard hobbyists, or, for that matter those of soundboard repairers. The fact that there are so many great pianos out there, with lessened crown, cracks, etc, etc, suggests to me that the crown model, the elaborations of which I would call the spring model, a point indicated a year or so ago by Dale Irvin, is not the only schema by which to measure such things and, in fact, may well be inadequate, which I believe it is.
> So it's not hard to believe that there is room for improvement. That said, I think it's important that we use the correct means for evaluating what is or is not an improvement. Ultimately, an improvement is what makes the piano more appealing to the pianist or allows the pianist greater artistic freedom or means of expression. If we incorporate a change that we think is an improvement but as a result of the
> 'improvement' the pianist doesn't like the piano as well, then we're using the wrong metric to measure our 'improvements'. We could also say that there are secondary or technical changes that are improvements to the extent that they don't compromise the artistic functionality of the instrument. Such things as tuning stability or longevity of the instrument. But if we achieve these things at the expense of the artistic capabilities of the instrument then most pianists will tell us that these things are not improvements. If the piano stands in tune longer, but doesn't sound as good, then that will not be considered an improvement in
> the view of most pianists.
> We also need to be mindful of the price we pay to achieve
> consistency. If your improved design can consistently achieve the highest levels then everyone will be happy. If you achieve consistency by bringing up the lows a bit and chopping down the highs a bit then some people will not be happy. Is it better to use building methods that result in all of your pianos being very good, rather than using building methods that result in some of your pianos being superlative and some of them being lousy? I think most artists would tell you that they would prefer the
> latter. They'll accept a certain number of lousy ones if it means that they can get a certain number of great ones. This is part of what makes them artists, and not worker bees. If this is your perspective, then until someone shows that their 'improved' piano can soar to the heights of the best Steinways, it's pretty hard to fault Steinway for continuing to do things the way they do (or did, depending on your viewpoint), and I think that artists wouldn't want it otherwise.
This is exactly my perspective but I would extend your comments to Chickering, M&H, Knabe, Baldwin, Sohmer, Chase and numerous others which I will not take the time to enumerate. If any number of these pianos and other brands as well, are rebuilt they sound far superior to me in quality, and by this I mean an emotional, musical, expressive aspect, that similar ones with new boards or to new pianos per se, lack or have only partially. This is the case whether the rebuilding was done by methods I use or those of others and sometimes even in the case of the frequent, careless, poor jobs, so often encountered. Nevertheless, there is an underlying musicality to my ear which is almost never encountered on new pianos or ones with new boards.
My arguments as to a schema for soundboard behavior are made because I disagree with the analysis itself, for intellectual reasons, even though for a short period some years ago, I was similarly inclined. Since then, I have com to believe many relevant factors are disregarded or misconstrued. Some of these I have tried to point out. When I find then, that the conclusions that are then presented regarding soundboards, are, in fact, greatly at odds with my own experience, I belabor myself and give voice to this.
>
>
> > Needless to say, I am not greatly in agreement with the views
> >along these lines of the pressurists, although I publicly acknowledge a
> >debt of gratitude for myself and urge the same for other technicians to
> >Del Fandrich for his series of articles in the Journal even though, in
> >general, I can't agree with much of the analysis or conclusions obtained
> >thereby.
>
> I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to those that make the effort to share their knowledge and experience; in the Journal, here on this forum, or otherwise. Del has been especially generous in this regard. I don't believe the goal is that we all agree, but that we have reasons for the things we believe and put into practice.
>
> > Nevertheless there is an insistence, at least, on a refreshing
> >level of rationality on these kinds of subjects which had been rather
> >sorely lacking previously.
>
> I think some rationality in an endeavor that is steeped in tradition is a healthy thing. At the same time, I think that a wholesale abandonment of tradition without good reason is an unhealthy thing.
>
> > It is the method and extent of analysis, and
> >conclusions drawn from them with which I disagree and this,
> >unfortunately, appears to give offense to some and renders problematical
> >the utility of further discussion.
>
> It don't think it gave offense to me, although I certainly was frustrated at times. I think both sides of this discussion experienced some frustration. At times, the two sides seemed so far apart, and seemed to be having so little luck getting points across, that it seemed that there was a fundamental failure to communicate, which would seem to make further discussion pointless.
> Another thing that may make further discussion fruitless is a difference of objective or viewpoint among the participants. I think we may have been discussing at cross purposes in that some had what I might call a scientific viewpoint and others an engineering viewpoint. Those with the scientific viewpoint want to know how something 'really' works. Those with the engineering viewpoint aren't as interested in knowing how something really works but want practical guidelines that can be used in achieving an objective. To give an example - a simply supported beam loaded in the middle:
>
Certainly, but, from my point of view, there are all of these great sounding old pianos out there. An unfortunate, nagging, irritant to those who would consign them to the junkyard if there boards were not replaced.
>
> The engineer - knows that an equation from a handbook will give a very accurate number for the deflection of that beam under load. What's really happening? Maybe the steel is stretching. Maybe the load is causing some sort of pressure wave that's bouncing around inside the beam and displacing the molecules or something. Who knows? Who cares? He has his formula which accurately predicts the deflection of the beam and he can use that information to design a building or an airplane. Let someone else figure out what's really going on.
>
> The scientist - knows that the equation from the handbook is an
> approximation that pretty accurately works under certain circumstances but has nothing to do with what is really going on. What's really happening? Well, let's try this theory - the load at the beam surface is displacing the molecules in the crystalline structure of the steel near the interface, which then through a shearing force on the crystalline lattice structure, etc., etc. Or perhaps ......
>
> Personally, I don't care what is really going on. I'm interested in a model of soundboard behavior that will yield guidelines for changing soundboard parameters to change soundboard performance in a predictable way, even if that model has nothing to do with 'reality'. I'm not sure that that's what we were discussing before.
>
Well, personally, for me, I do care what is going on. But that is neither here nor there. What I argue against is a view which, taken to its logical extreme, suggests all pianos without the "new, improved," board are, somehow, inferior to those with it. This is a view, which, I hope, I have been effective in suggesting to you conflicts with my own experience which indicates, in fact, it is just the other way. As I say, the example of great sounding pianos out there, admittedly with various technical problems which need correcting, uprights and grands, are innumerable. They sound superior, to my ear, to new pianos, and superior to those with a new board.
Your post here raises many interesting questions, as they frequently do yet, at the moment, I don't have the time available to respond adequately. A number of my other posts have contained conciliatory commentary on the prospects of soundboard replacement, new pianos, redesigns, etc and the respect I have for those who set forth on such difficult endeavors. These are and were sincere, nevertheless, I must say that, in general, the views of piano technicians per se, or those whose ambitions extend to redesigning pianos, absent critical input from those that actually use the instrument who must ultimately determine the suitability of any feature or the instrument as a whole are just what they are - a speculation which must rely, ultimately, on luck itself for success.
Regards, Robin Hufford
>
> Also, David (and I presume others) seem still interested in this
> discussion. But at the same time, just a few days ago, in response to David's post there was another post stating that some of us are taking discussions beyond where most on the list want to go, or words to that effect. So, I'm not sure what to conclude with regard to continuing a discussion of a complex and seemingly controversial subject on this list.
>
> > As I am sure you are aware, given your research of the subject
> >threads, these and other kinds of efforts for analytical purposes take
> >time. as has this one, and we all have to make a living, a point made
> >by Ron O. a year or so ago, a fact which tends to constrict the amount
> >of time that can be given over to argumentation here. Arguments,
> >whether rational or emotional and antagonistic, represent investments of
> >considerable uncompensated time and are a sacrifice.
>
> Agreed. I haven't lost interest in this subject. In fact I've purchased some books and done some studying of publications relating to this. But the subject is complex and study of this sort is time consuming, as are formulating and responding to posts. Also, until I feel that I've come to some conclusions or have something further to share it seems pointless to start another discussion.
>
> > Yet I see no
> >relevant posting from you, other than your organization of the relevant
> >threads, which would indicate a willingness to make the same sacrifice
> >you urge on others. Surely, you have an opinion and why don't you
> >express it? Public argument and counterargument is as available to you
> >as it is to anyone else, one of the very real virtues of this list.
> >Regards, Robin Hufford
>
> Agreed. If you want to start a discussion, state an opinion or take a position. Perhaps we'll respond.
>
> Phil F
>
> Phillip Ford
> Piano Service & Restoration
> 1777 Yosemite Ave - 130
> San Francisco, CA 94124
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC