[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[David Love]

I agree, though getting to that point has neither been easy nor inexpensive.
It's one thing to identify a make from a single or even a couple of notes.
It's a different thing to sit down to a known entity, like a Steinway, for
example, and be able to tell if what you hear falls into a range of what you
might expect even if there are some differences between pianos of that make
that routinely occur.  The changes incorporated into these designs as part
of a new set of protocols do illustrate that and how much change in the
tonal signature will depend on what exactly is changed and to what degree.
If the only thing that's changed is manufacture of the ribs in a rib crowned
assembly, ribbed at 6% instead of 5% and the overall rib scale is not that
much different from what was on there to begin with then it will probably
fall within the range of what you might expect from a more conventional
approach.  But as you begin to add features: heavier rib scales, change in
grain angle, 22 ribs instead of 14 in a radial array, large cutoff bar in
the bass and treble, bass float, longer backscale and removal of the duplex,
transition bridges, different rib feathering, less panel thinning, etc, then
incrementally you start to move away from the range of what is normally
heard from the standard approach even with the variability in materials and
execution that is expected to occur.  And if you employ all of those design
features collectively then in the end you can have something quite different
than what you started with.  Now that might be the goal for some and even
desirable in certain situations or with certain customers.  However, while
there's no question that those changes "work", what they produce can be
something quite different from where you started, may not be everyone's cup
of tea and may not meet the musical expectations of those who end up playing
them.  I speak from some experience with various iterations of these designs
when I say that the biggest problem I now see with some of these changes is
that the focus on engineering is sometimes put before the music that will
need to be interpreted on the instrument.  The first question that needs to
be asked before embarking on this path, I've come to realize, is what does
the piano need to do musically, what is the dynamic and expressive range
that is required by the music that will be played on it, and what do the
individuals who will play it  expect it to deliver.  Once that's
established, then you can figure out how to get there.  Otherwise, you're
putting the cart before the horse.

 

David Love

www.davidlovepianos.com

 

            In any case, my last post was aimed at one specific distinction,
between NY Steinway original equipment and design, and a general array of
rebuilding/remanufacture/redesign standards and concepts that are pretty
well established among at least a small group of rebuilders, and have been
expressed, argued and explained at great length and in great detail on this
list and pianotech over the years. Here, the distinction is more clear, as a
number of factors are changed. In the extreme case, the soundboard is rib
crowned with stiffer ribs and with a bass cutoff relatively close to the
bridge; duplex is removed in favor of a lower angle and shorter front
segment; rescaling is done; hammers are cold pressed without lacquer. These
differences are in marked contrast to Steinway design, especially when all
put together, and the difference in sound and response is pretty clear. 

Regards,

Fred Sturm

University of New Mexico

fssturm at unm.edu

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110215/1e13e6cd/attachment.htm>