I too would prefer a single daily digest for CAUT and Pianotech. Anyone else? Harry Reed -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of caut-request at ptg.org Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 11:01 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: CAUT Digest, Vol 28, Issue 94 Send CAUT mailing list submissions to caut at ptg.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/caut or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to caut-request at ptg.org You can reach the person managing the list at caut-owner at ptg.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CAUT digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Rinsing lacquer from hammers (Fred Sturm) 2. Why isn't the CAUT digest a daily digest? (Greg Graham) 3. Re: Steinway "sound" (Jim Busby) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:33:40 -0700 From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Rinsing lacquer from hammers Message-ID: <F97DE737-9FF2-4923-8478-A87B14C2BBEF at unm.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:43 PM, David Love wrote: > Given the structure of the fibers that we see here in these various > photographs one wonders whether this method tended to leave the bulk > of the solids content within the fiber and remove the residual content > that might collect outside the fibers. Interesting. In any case, if solvents can get solids inside the fibers, they can presumably get them out again. That is to say, it isn't black and white, that soaking only would remove the surface solids and would leave the "absorbed" solids untouched. So soaking would probably remove a good portion of both surface and inner solids. The likelihood of getting it all out would be lower, though, for the scenario of solids inside. Regards, Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/FredSturm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110214/b953525d/attachment- 0001.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:48:46 -0800 (PST) From: Greg Graham <grahampianos at yahoo.com> To: CAUT at ptg.org Subject: [CAUT] Why isn't the CAUT digest a daily digest? Message-ID: <152482.65071.qm at web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Most lists to which I subscribe issue a "daily digest" with one email per day.? Lately, the CAUT list sends dozens of "digests" per day.? This day is not yet over, and I've received 16.? Is it supposed to work that way?? Greg Graham ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:00:46 -0700 From: Jim Busby <jim_busby at byu.edu> To: "caut at ptg.org" <caut at ptg.org> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound" Message-ID: <739660BE4D87C748B380D5E57CD3A60BCFE788211D at harrow.exch.ad.byu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" David, I think the bellies. In voicing class, and in the other 3 classes we also had 4 different pianos and got to tweak them, try different things, and they were a mixed bag. IOW, if it wasn?t the belly and just the hammers you could technically make them all sound about the same using the same voicing techniques, right? No way here, IMO. They were different beasts. I wish I had your rebuilding chops and could give a better answer. Jim Busby From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:01 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound" Jim: The other question I meant to ask is with respect to the experiences you had at the factory. Do you think the differences in the B?s were owing to differences in the bellies themselves or just differences in the amount of prep work given to the D?s over the B?s? Recently a batch of new B?s were delivered to Stanford and before they were dispersed to the various rooms around I had chance to go through them side by side. There were a lot more similarities than differences to me. Some differences could be accounted for by hammer density alone, you could tell. And some other differences were sectional, some killer octaves were better than others and there were a few odd clunker notes here and there but they seemed to be mostly termination problems. Tenor and bass sections were very much alike. I don?t think I sat down to any one of them and said, wow now that?s different, though I had my favorites. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com I?ve been in the selection room in NY and the tone was all over the place with Bs but not quite as much with Ds, in my opinion. What I was hinting at is our worn out question; don?t Ds in concert halls, as well as the Steinway C&A Ds have a certain characteristic tone that is ?Steinway?? I agree with what you said below that we have the ability to reproduce it (last sentence below) but nearly all the rebuilds I?ve heard are not like Steinway. Nor do they try to be. That?s why (I think) Brent made his statements. Not in disrespect to anyone, but who might better duplicate the ?Steinway sound? if there is such an animal, than Steinway? Now I?ll bow out and let all the retorts fly. <G> Best, Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110214/5c2bc139/attachment. htm> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CAUT mailing list CAUT at ptg.org http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/caut End of CAUT Digest, Vol 28, Issue 94 ************************************
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC