>Hi Mark, I too am interested in the replacement of >traditional piano materials with new ones. But, in the >past, manufacturers who did this were usually aiming >for CHEAP, not enhanced performance. So when their >substitutions caused preoblems a backlash against all >innovative material substitution ensued. And that's >where we are today, basically. I believe that it's more complex than that. It is easy for the outsider to assume that old materials are used in a piano because they are _traditional._ If one asks an old craftsman who hasn't thought much about what he does for a long time, he'll give a rant about tradition and good old materials, hack, kaff. This unfortunate lack of communications often leads to poor designs. There typically are very good reasons that certain materials are used where they are used in a piano, but if these aren't communicated properly, improvements are tried that later fail. Mr Reblitz mentions some sort of teflon bushing used by Steinway. The designers apparently didn't realize that their traditional cellulose-based materials worked well because they all expand and contract at approximately the same rate with humidity variations. I'm sure that their people knew this instinctively, but could not articulate it to the youngsters. Plastics, in particular, are somewhat treacherous. There's no such thing as artificial time, so there's really no good way to predict that a plastic part will or will not deteriorate. The early polyurethane plastics are good examples. I built a small museum display in which four little 'feet' from a piece of chemistry equipment are gradually turning from firm rubber to sticky glop as the long-chain molecules break apart. At one point, enough urethane loudspeaker suspensions failed such that I was able to pay for my master's degree tuition by just replacing speakers for customers. >You get no argument from me. When you go for CHEAP you don't do much >research or engineering. Cuts into you short term profit. In my experience, it requires a great deal of engineering to reduce the price of a device. The classic example are computer IC's, but look at the marvelous mechanical drives in a VCR, the sophisticated high-power rf design in a microwave oven, and the utter sophistication in an inexpensive color television set. All of these have dropped steadily in price over the last thirty years, and their quality and durability has been maintained, if not improved. >I'd like to contrast this with the medical/drug trade (notice I did not >use >the word profession). >No, none, zip money is spent finding cheaper and more effective medical >procedures or drugs, but much is spent supressing what alternative medicine >has done. That includes traditional therapies that work. In the 1950's, a heart attack meant death. Cancer was a death sentence: there were no cures. Diabetes was barely controllable. Severe depression meant institutionalization. This is not the case at present. Consider a newly-discovered herbal preparation. These are typically explored and developed by pharmaceutical firms. The preparation will be tested on animals and ultimately humans in a series of double-blind tests. If the preparation fails the test, which most do, it will be abandoned and not marketed as safe and effective, because it isn't. However, this does not prevent it from being aggressively marketed and sold on the 'alternative medicine' market. >Millions are spent researching things that are more expensive of course. >More profitable you see. It's hardly a conspiracy. Pharmacology is complex and expensive. Anyone is welcome to participate, however. >Could I suggest that the difference is that the piano market is one that is >suported by discretionary spending, cultural values etc. whereas health is where the money is and we can milk it for all its worth. I'm thinking that >it will soon be so out of control that noone will be able to afford the >cost >of medical care that has been inflated by everyone (government, doctors, >drug companies, lawyers, accountants, insurance companies etc etc). When >only the patient and the doctor was involved, it worked and was so much >simpler. Things were indeed far simpler when only the doctor and patient were involved. The doctor would tell you that there wasn't anything else that could be done for the patient, and that was it. Now, however, there are possibilities: organ transplants, MRI's, chemotherapies, beta blockers, steroid therapies, sophisticated antibiotics, anti-viral therapies, andti-depressives, anti-psychotics, and all of the tests associated therewith. A lot more people are involved, so more money is involved. However, the cures usually work, and that's perhaps worth the extra trouble and expense. Great fortunes are seldom attained through health care. Some pharmaceutical firms have certainly profited, but the principal donors to hospital building funds (look at the plaques next time you're there) are seldom doctors. You'll see construction companies, real-estate firms, media firms, investment houses, banks and industries. M Kinsler 512 E Mulberry St. Lancaster, Ohio USA 43130 740-687-6368 http://home.earthlink.net/~mkinsler1 _________________________________________________________________ Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC