More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise

[David Love]

Similar to the D but with treble fish.  Bass bridge was slightly
modified shortening the cantilever but not eliminating it.  Compound
cut-off.  Original rib positions.  Interestingly, Steinway hammers
worked on the D, but not on the A.  The D hammers needed quite a bit of
beefing up with lacquer though.  On the A, a firm hammer was also
necessary but it didn't sound good with lacquer.  Whether or not the
hammer I used was the "perfect" hammer.  I don't know.  You have to stop
somewhere.  It was the best sound from what I had.  Many of the Steinway
boards have a bit more of a "woof" in the tenor at the attack.  The
attack on these pianos is firmer, not harsh, but very solid.  Some
people may not like that who are used to something with a bit more give
in this section--a little more dark and mysterious maybe.  One thing to
consider is that these boards are very balanced in terms of tone
quality.  The underlying tone that exists in the tenor is present in the
treble and bass.  On the surface it seems like that's a good target.
But it may be that a piano with somewhat different characteristics
between sections might be more desirable from an expressive viewpoint.
But this is just musing.  I have always liked the tenor on Steinway
pianos.  My problem is often the capo sections and maybe the low bass.
The tenor section on this piano, as I mentioned, is slightly different
at least alittle different from what I am used to.  But whether that's
due to the ribbing style or the cut-off, I can't say.  I suppose the
next experiment would be to RC&S the board without the cut-off and see
what that yields.  But this is the sort of experimenting that can be
dangerous and I am reluctant to ask for it not really knowing what it
will produce.      

David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Ron Nossaman
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:13 AM
To: Pianotech
Subject: RE: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise


>OK so let's get to a real world experience.  Forget all the idle
>speculation for a moment.  I have a Steinway A, RC&S board, new.

You had a D with, I think, a beefed up and crowned rib set with few 
modifications?? How extensively was this A modified?


>I do
>what I always do with rebuilt NY Steinways, I put Steinway hammer on.
>The piano is dull.  I add lacquer, normal thing.  The piano gets
clangy.
>I drive everyone crazy wondering what's going on.  After all kinds of
>jumping around I decide to try other hammers.  I try Isaac, too soft.
I
>try Abel encores, ouch.  I try Renner blues, more clang, I try Wurzen,
>no better, then I try Abel Select and "The hills are alive...".  The
>piano comes alive, no clang, beautiful tone, full with nice balance of
>partials, my wife decides not to move out afterall.
>
>So what's that all about.  I've always been able to get a good tone on
a
>CC board with a lacquered Steinway hammer.  Not on this one.  The tone
>with the Abel Select is very good, even "Steinwaylike" (I know,
whatever
>that is), and the hammer and piano have not yet even developed.  This
is
>not an advocacy for a particular hammer or an indictment of others.
>It's simply the case here that a particular hammer was needed to
>produce, in my opinion, the right balance of tone.  We discussed before
>about the right hammer for the right board and many people dismissed
>that idea--a good hammer will yield good tone.  I'm not so sure.  The
>right hammer will yield good tone. So the observation is that there may
>be some differences between a CC board and a RC&S board that creates
the
>need for a particular hammer for that assembly.

I've run into this too, which is why I've been saying that the hammer 
choice depends a lot on the soundboard. I'm not entirely sure what's
going 
on here. The evolution of the technology isn't anywhere near complete,
and 
there are still plenty of things to learn. The resilience of the hammer 
seems to be very important in these boards, and the harder hammers don't

work at all well.


>What that is, I'd love
>to know.

Me too. I have some ideas, but haven't done enough of these boards to be

sure. I'd like to be able to make them somewhat more tolerant of
different 
hammer characteristics without losing what I like about them in sound 
quality, response, and dependability.


>That way you could design a hammer and then produce a board
>that matched it, or vice versa, or course.  Wouldn't that be something?
>
>David Love

That would indeed be something. Some control is already possible. Boards

can be built favoring power, favoring sustain, or somewhere in the
middle, 
as well as the enhanced stiffness control in different areas. We're
making 
progress, I think, but we don't have all the answers.

Ron N

_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives