[CAUT] Tone "contrast"; Was - The "new" S&S Hammers.

[Richard Brekne]

Hi

David may have been responding to my post, but Jims counter is more then
appropriate.  I indeed said nothing about anyones goals, nor inferred
anything in particular about anyone in particular.  I did indeed make a
comment in general about anyone who goes so far as to declare their own
perceptions of how pianos should sound as superior to any who
dissagree... and I most certainly stand by that comment.

I think its fair to say that the divergence in Davids own voicing tastes
from those on the far side of the bright vs dark fence is quite large.
Indeed I know of at least one very respected S.F. tech who characterises
Davids voicings as mush. I personally find such characterizations
distasteful and said so at the time.  However... the exchange, like so
much else written on this subject just goes to show that many of the
responses to the initial post are quite correct... tastes vary and quite
a bit at that.  I agree with David on at least the point of the
non-usage of lacquer to achieve a fine voice, and for similiar reasons.
Tho I will be the first to admit that there are many that I respect
deeply who take a completely different take on that point.  They achieve
the voice they want with loads of lacquer, and it has nothing directly
to do with string scales, soundboard thicknesses and all the rest of
it.  They will achieve a similar voice on each and every piano they
voice regardless of make. To be sure the instruments scale and
soundboard will colour this voice... but the general characteristics of
the hammers to string voicing relationship will be the same and one can
hear clearly that persons style from instrument to instrument.

btw.. I just read Davids article a few days ago... I have to admit I
found it interesting that he ndeed started by making what struck me as a
very noble declaration as to the virtues of the very wide and varied
field for preferences in piano sound there exists in the world.  I was
just as startled upon further reading to read what apparently were very
exacting definitions for the parameters of what exceptable sound and
piano performance was. Something seemingly  echoed below.  There is
agreement in a response to Jim and David I. that piano sound concepts
vary widely... yet below there are  qualifiers that go beyond what I am
able to see is inclusive of that existing and actual wide range. Indeed,
it is stated outright that

    "Avoidance of gross distortions, caused by overdriving soundboards
    may be a goal, but it doesn't preclude a solid fortissimo"

No clear definition of what <<gross distortions caused by overdriving
soundboards>> consists of is given mind you... but based on many many
statements by David about issues like front and rear duplexes and the
like I think it is fair to say that what the authors perception of
"gross distortions" are clearly can be percieved by many others as part
of an overall beautiful sound.

None of this is a criticism towards anyone.... simply a statement of
fact that underlines the claims made by others here on this thread that
good piano sound is a very very wide concept indeed... and so it should be.

Cheers
RicB




    I'm not sure which rebuilders you are talking about but I can guess.  I
    think your statement mischaracterizes their goals.  I neither think
    they are
    looking for a "super ppp" level (a natural pianissimo will do) nor
    are they
    equating "some kind of brilliance with noise".  Avoidance of gross
    distortions, caused by overdriving soundboards may be a goal, but it
    doesn't
    preclude a solid fortissimo.  Emphasis on sustain may require some
    slight
    sacrifice in loudness--at least from the board.  Yet, on many of these
    boards a wide range of tone can be achieved much more easily since
    soundboard and string scale matching delivers a somewhat more
    predictable
    result and allows for brilliance, fortissimo (and pianissimo) with a
    hammer
    that is neither filled with lacquer nor quarried from granite.
    Neither are
    they out declaring their ideas as superior.  It is simply a choice
    that they
    are making and they are being generous enough to share their ideas.
    I don't
    know about "clear market preferences".  My experience with my customers
    (many of whom are very fine concert musicians) is that most pianos
    are too
    loud, too percussive, too strident, without expressive
    characteristics on
    the lower end.  Concert preparation is a very different thing than
    what most
    people would choose to play on everyday.  Also, carrying a 3000 seat
    hall
    forces you to make choices that you would not under normal playing
    conditions.

    Choices about voicing a piano for presentation at conventions are more
    complicated and often must anticipate dead presentation rooms,
    ambient noise
    levels and other problems.  Within any design pianos can be voiced
    to very
    low or very high levels.  Those choices may not reflect the
    potential in any
    given instrument.

    David Love
    davidlovepianos at comcast.net
    www.davidlovepianos.com

    -


        There seems to be a growing desire amoungst several rebuilders
        in the
        states to opt for a very moody and softish sound base. The idea
        that a
        super ppp level should be needed goes to the expense of any real
        brilliance, seemingly because these same equate that kind of
        brilliance
        with noise.  It matters not that the vast majority of pianists
        seem to
        on the other hand opt for that kind of brilliant sound base.  On
        the one
        hand, I applaud the willingness to explore different colour
        pallets, yet
        on the other hand I am skeptical to the apparent insistance of
        some to
        declare their own ideas as superior others, writing off clear
        market
        preferences as meaningless in a variety of ways.


        Cheers
        RicB