[CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

[Richard Brekne]

Hi David

Thanks for the very topical and level response. If this is your 
evaluation, and it seems by and large most agreeable to my mind, then 
I'd have to go with defining such an installation as clearly a custom 
modification, and it should be so marked on the instrument in an 
appropriately visible yet modest fashion.  And again I'd personally 
insist on such a marking if it was me doing the work if for no other 
reason then to insure everyone looking at the piano knew it was ME who 
deserves the credit for the pianos performance.... for better or worse :)

The discussion as it tangents off in the direction of what real response 
differences there are (or are not) between the differing types of boards 
then need not be addressed further here. Thats a can of worms anyways 
and as you say... difficult to objectify anyways. But for clarification, 
variances in SB response between like construction methods board and 
general variance between different construction methods boards are two 
different things.  I will without further ado grant the RC&S camp that 
that method is more predictable, easier to achieve and (apparently at 
this point at any rate) more stable over time.  I guard that last point 
as we have'nt seen a surviving 100 year old example of these yet... nor 
a 25 year old one for that matter.... to my knowledge that is. Whether 
the observed variances in S&S boards are a desirable or not to the 
degree some think (either way for that matter) is a subject that dips 
quickly way to far into areas that are too subjective in nature to 
really debate constructively IMHO. It never ceases to amaze me what 
kinds of piano sounds an astounding number of people from all levels of 
music life seem to fall for. There is where I fall back on "live and let 
live" if you get my meaning.

Cheers
RicB




    For the record I would not say that one creates the same panel using
    CC or RC&S methods.  Differences in each style's response to changes
    in humidity and issues of predictability, stability and longevity
    are differences and important ones.  In terms of whether a CC board
    produces a different tonal quality than an RC&S board that's a more
    difficult question to answer because you have to ask against which
    particular CC board you are comparing it with.  However, considering
    the number of original NY Steinways both new and old that I work on
    and the variation in tonal response due to soundboard differences
    that I hear (I think I can identify when tonal differences are
    soundboard driven as opposed to hammer driven), and compare that
    with the number of RC&S boards that I have now done, I would argue
    that my experience suggests that the range of tonal response that
    you find between pianos with original executions is far greater than
    any detectable differences between the RC&S boards that I do and the
    original Steinway pianos that I consider functioning with a healthy
    soundboard.  That's putting aside small changes that I may make to
    smooth scaling transitions and enhance treble response and the like.
    I'm speaking more to the general tonal impression.  Moreover, I
    would definitely say that the range in tonal response between the
    boards that I've done using RC&S methods is significantly narrower
    than the range I hear between soundboards with original executions
    and that would be true whether you are comparing a bunch of new ones
    against each other and/or a mixture of newer and older ones and/or
    rebuilt ones using original methods.

    I don't really want to get into the explanation about positive and
    negative springs and such because I'm not really sure exactly what
    you are saying but I have done enough RC&S boards now and heard
    enough disappointing original executions to be convinced that the
    RC&S method is a more reliable and more stable one.  Are there
    fundamental tonal differences?  For the sake of argument I would be
    willing to stipulate that there are though I would be hard pressed
    to identify exactly what those differences are.  Nor would I say
    that they are significant enough for me to abandon the RC&S method
    in favor of the CC method that tends to produce outcomes with much
    greater variability than any perceived difference between the two
    methods.

    That, at least, is my own personal experience and as I continue to
    engage in these RC&S executions the evidence continues to mount in
    their favor.  

    David Love
    www.davidlovepianos.com