Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways:

[Robin Hufford]

     The underlying assumption of the various techniques of the
"redesigners"  is what, as far as I can tell,  seems to be a completely
unsupported claim to a superior result, something which, if real, all  would
applaud.  But the only reality that I can see here in this context are words
and ideas only, both of which may well be questioned.   What does it  mean
when one hears over and over: " These methods and techniques will achieve a
superior result, " and in the next  breath, "The results are  superior
because we have used these methods."  Surely few would concede anything to
such an argument, except, perhaps laughter.
     The claimed result may well be superior, I don't know.  What I do know
is that there is a very high bar to be overcome in extant, "deficient"
designs.   That bar is represented by a known quantity in my experience and,
as near as I can tell, in that of many, many others.  This is the very high
quality sound of the many "amazing" pianos to repeat Phil F.'s description
that exist out there inspite of the many "deficiencies"  the redesigners
purport to correct.
      Similarly, and, again, I ask what does it mean when one hears :
"These methods produce a superior performance" and, again in the same
breath, "Because we use these methods the performance is superior."  Again,
what is a known quantity is the ability of many unredesigned instruments,
and instruments in need of attention, to deliver, at the least, some level
of reasonably acceptable performance witness the Horowitz piano recently
commented upon here.  I ardently hope I don't have to suffer the outraged
commentary of those whose only contribution will be to loudly state the
obvious:  the many possible  improvements that can be made in all kinds of
touch and sound by techniques conventional and otherwise.  Nevertheless,  do
these have to be reached by completely transcending the fundamental nature
and design of the instrument, negating its very essence, so to speak, and
tossing  the very thing the owner is likely to have acquired it for  in the
first place, and which maintains, rightly or wrongly its value in the
marketplace, out the door?  I rather doubt it.
     Furthermore, with regard to "performance" it is not likely that the
actual uses of these "deficient designs", etc. etc. over the last 130 years
or so by those who have in reality  used them in all kinds public venues and
purposes, actually sweating out the results of  real performances, and not
mere design expectations,  along with other  uses elsewhere, represents  an
incomparably stricter, more severe test?  Both in number and degree,  the
extent of the so-called performance  which the Gentlemen of Redesign aim at
by way of comparison to the more conventional designs they so vehemently
assert  to have transcended in all respects, can be but an insignificant
fraction of the incidents of succesful usuage of the past in whatever
setting despite the many purported, limiting, "deficiencies" constantly
announced with loud fanfare.
     Were I a juror answering a question in the judge's charge to the jury
asking whether  numerous redesign aspects had abrogated  the very nature of
the instrument itself, by way of Ed's point, and, further, possibly
lessened its value, I in good conscience would have to answer in the
affirmative.   Also, with all due respect,  the statement below indicating a
preference on the part of Steinway for a lesser sound,  seems trivial in
every respect and well demonstrates the circular, tautalogical approach
touched on above.
     Now having said all of this I still say - please redesign away -as I
see nothing sacrosanct about the instrument providing the  owner agrees,
but leave the absolutist claims to your customers as they may have some
basis upon which to form a belief on them.
Regards, Robin Hufford
David Love 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
> davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
>
> > How far can a Steinway get its sound
> > improved without sounding like something other than a Steinway?
> > Ed Foote RPT
> > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
> > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives