---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Robin Hufford wrote: > 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. This much seems quite right, tho we have to admit the possiblity that the support for some of these claims is forthcomming, rather delayed by the usual tendancies in the market towards the conservative. > 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. I'd agree with the first part, and conditionally on the second part. An instruments value is a complex thing indeed. Partially based on the name, the perceptions of potential buyers relative to the issues we've been discussing, and just how well it performs and sounds interdependent with these. Also a rebuilt instrument can have potential value based on the reputation of the rebuilder him/her self. Something each of these should be eager to profile I would think. So why a rebuilt instrument may indeed loose some of its value as an origional Steinway, or Mason & Hamlin, or whathaveyou... it may gain all that and more again depending on some of these other factors.... or indeed it may loose on the exchange. Certainly tho... any significant change that fundementally alters the music/acoustical intent of the origional manufacturer is a detriment to that intent,,, however much it may or may not be an improvement seen in other perpectives. > Also, with all due respect, the statement (italics) 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. It sure does. > 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 > > 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. > Nice to hear from you again Robin. -- 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 ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/9b/ad/a1/e7/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC