What sounds best may not be quantifiable, but what functions best may very well be. If the function of a soundboard is to enhance and balance the various frequencies produced by vibrating strings, for example, then optimizing the shape and structure should be quantifiable. Which is not to say that establishing the criteria is easy. If it can be demonstrated, for example, the without a cutoff bar the board performs in a way which is counterproductive to its designed function, then why would adding a cutoff bar to a piano without one be contrary to the design as it relates to the intention of the designer, namely, to get the soundboard to function in the most efficient manor. The ability to see how the cutoff bar effected performance is, I presume, a relatively recent development. Why not use it then. The fact is that optimizing performance was clearly not always the goal of every designer/engineer. Often performance had to be balanced with the economics of manufacturing and many of the designs that we are dealing with from 100 years ago do not benefit from more recent developments. To duplicate designs that were made for reasons other than performance and that do not take advantage of advances in information and design seems, well to use a risky word, silly. There are other things that go into establishing the character of the piano aside from the performance of the soundboard. Hammer style and density being a very important one. Yet hammers are routinely swapped around these days. I don't see Abel producing hammers that are designed to match the original hammers for NY Steinway, for example. Nor would I expect that those who put them on NY Steinways to change the fallboard label to read Abel-Steinway, or Steinway-Abel. I don't know soundboard making processes well enough to discuss the subtle differences between various makers. But I am beginning to observe a number of common elements to the best made pianos. Some difference appear to be much ado about nothing, for example bridge grain orientation and sound transmission. Other differences seem to be less compromisable, for example soundboard stiffness in varying parts of the assembly, rib support, proper scaling. The differences in pianos are sometimes design related, but when designs are fundamentally good, the differences are then more execution related. The Steinway action is a good example of this--a good design with uneven execution. Some designs are more subject to the variances in execution. Compression crowned boards are amongst those. I would guess that a well executed compression board will sound just as good as a rib crowned board. Will it sound different? How could you tell. It's impossible to do an apples to apples comparison. It may not last as long, but if properly executed will perform its function. But will adding rib crowning change the fundamental character or performance of the board in the short term, assuming both are executed well? Probably not. So why not take the route that gives greater leeway in execution and has a history of greater longevity. There are, however, some areas where design does seem to be at issue. The terms "devil's octave", "killer octave" didn't come about because of one single piano. The fact that the problem occurs over and over again suggests a design flaw. To ensure that this area of the piano performs like it is meant to with good power and sustain, it may require modifications from the "original design", additional bracing of the belly rail, beefing up the ribs, perhaps. If the older design has demonstrated a propensity to fail in this area, then not modifying it seems a much greater dereliction of duty than any ethical line you risk crossing by changing the sacred "original design". I think that in looking at designs and deciding whether to modify them one needs to consider the goal in performance of the component parts as well as the instrument as a whole. Here there are more and more quantifiable data to help make those decisions. Beyond that there is still plenty of room for qualitative judgment and decision making to give the piano its final form and voice. David Love davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > [Original Message] > From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no> > To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> > Date: 5/10/2003 3:10:35 PM > Subject: Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways: > > > > Ron Nossaman wrote: > > > >That's an interesting statement. I wonder how Steinway would interpret > > >that. In other words, this piano can sound better, but let's leave it > > >sounding less good so that it's more like a Steinway. > > > > > >David Love > > > > > > > > > > How far can a Steinway get its sound > > > > improved without sounding like something other than a Steinway? > > > > Ed Foote RPT > > > > That's a good question, Ed. Let's find out. But why all this focus on > > Steinway? The one single and most important point that nearly everyone is > > ignoring here is that this stuff is not about Steinway at all. It's about > > improving performance of just about any piano out there, provided there is > > a minimum structure to work with in the first place. How far can a Kimball > > get it's sound improved without sounding like something other than a > > Kimball? Again, let's find out. We're trying to make whatever piano we are > > working with be the best sounding piano it can be by our efforts. This > > stuff works on pianos, not just on Steinways, and has nothing whatsoever to > > do with reverential awe of any monolithic object other than the beauty of > > discovery of some of the science behind what makes a piano work - or not > > work, and the practical application of those principals in making as > > musical a sound as possible come out of any given piano. > > The only problem is that "what sounds best" is simply not quantifiable in the > sense you want it to be. "What sounds best" is what anyone likes at any given > time. Its so friggen relative that its amazing. We find people absolutely in > love with a 230 year old clavichord and find appallingly disgusting the sound > of the modern piano. And in-between these two obviously overstated extremes > there is all that mired mesh of individual tastes and preference, rational or > not or both. Instruments made by Steinway, Knabe, Bechstein, Whomever are done > as they are done on purpose... because the people responsible for their > creation LIKE what they do and how they do it and what results. ( I look aside > from the machine stamped instruments here). Its just too simple to just cast > aside all this and claim that some new principal here, or some understanding > of knowledge there dictates that all pianos can and should benefit by being > changed to conform. To begin with, not everyone will agree, and that doesn't > mean they are a bunch of neanderthals dancing around the proverbial fire > throwing red ochre into it shouting the name of some piano god. > > > > > This is > > fundamental working knowledge, folks, not a smoke and mirrors entrenched > > belief without practical experience or understanding, and there's still a > > whole lot to discover and learn to use in that pursuit. Progress in > > anything requires not only adding to existing knowledge, but leaving behind > > past truths that have proven not to be the benefit they were once thought > > to be. This is difficult for most of us because we have invested a lot of > > blood and sweat into trying to learn to deal with these existing warts, > > even to the point of assigning the least improvable of them the status of > > "character" to relieve ourselves of further responsibility in fixing them. > > But we find we can fix a lot of them by letting them go and replacing them > > with something more mechanically and acoustically workable. This requires > > an open mind and the willingness to evolve as new information becomes > > available. That's the tough part. Focusing on one sacred relic to the > > exclusion of all other conflicting evidence is not a growth attitude. > > > > But that's just what I think. > > And believe me Ron, Del, and all of like mind... I admire the effort far more > then you probably will ever give me credit for. Its just that I have a very > hard time understanding why on earth with all that blood sweat and tears, with > all that accumulated knowledge, with all that gathered, honed and refined skill > and the willpower to keep on with it all, that you find your own name not worth > finding its well earned place on any such instrument so redesigned. I have no > doubt in my mind that when you are done with your absolute best > redesign/rebuild, that piano has far more Ron Nossaman in it then whatever the > original manufacturer intended. > > To put a point on it, there is a major difference between more precisely tuning > a duplex scale and saying... "hey the duplex is a bad idea... lets do something > else." > > > > Ron N > > _______________________________________________ > > But that's just my different view :) > > Cheers > > RicB > > -- > Richard Brekne > RPT, N.P.T.F. > UiB, Bergen, Norway > mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no > http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html > http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC