On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, David Love wrote: > Agreed that he needs to have things square and mated enough to get a > good sense of the tonal potential. But I wasn’t under the > impression that was a question mark in this case. One person's certainty that things have been done well may not correspond to another's. I harp on these things because I am convinced (from checking many, many instruments, often rebuilt and prepped by quality shops from both coasts and in between, or new from dealers) that most people don't pay enough attention to them, and don't have an adequate technique to attend to them in the precise way they require. So they go about blaming other factors for the shortcomings of the instrument. And more often than not, if it is a customer's instrument and I have the opportunity to correct them, I find that most of those shortcomings go away, not just in my eyes and ears, but in those of the customer. (Often there is voicing as well, but it is after these things have been refined). Travel/square/mating may or may not be factors in this case. I wouldn't know without pulling the action and checking myself. So as a member of a long distance list, I point out things that nobody else is talking about. Of course, it _could_ be "defective hammers" (I doubt it), could be something to do with the structure of the instrument (quite possible), could be expectations that the particular instrument won't meet. All we can do at a distance is give our best guess. My point is that until you are absolutely positive you have laid this foundation well, all other speculation is premature. Regards, Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu "I am only interested in music that is better than it can be played." Schnabel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110211/37b45c11/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC