Let's take this in a slightly different direction. Outside of those who are simply building their own pianos from the ground up, I think the redesign group falls into two different camps. There are those who are simply trying to build what they think is the best sounding (or designed) piano with little (or at least less) concern for what the piano was originally. And then there are those who are, in this case, trying to build the best and most consistent Steinways that they can and are seeking methods and practices that give them greater consistency. This second group is trying to eliminate the wide range of outcomes that we've touched upon in the discussion about piano selection and avoid the factory failures that end up getting sent to the least favorite dealers who maybe refuse to sell Essex pianos or something <g>. The approach of the second group is understandable. They are independent (re)builders producing a limited number of pianos per year and they cannot afford even one failure or lesser outcome. Their goal in looking into design issues is to try and discover methods and practices that produce products that fall within that range (that we've also discussed) that are not unrecognizable "Steinway" pianos but more consistently and (hopefully) without regressing to the mean. The first group, I think, has an easier time of it in some ways if they're being honest about what they are doing, and I think most are, even if it doesn't get communicated well. They incorporate design features that in their opinion are meant to optimize the piano from an engineering standpoint though they still must define certain musical parameters and goals which may or may not hold true for all musicians. For them that's one of the biggest challenges. As has been pointed out, good engineering doesn't always guarantee a good musical result. It's trickier for the second group. They need to define the design problems that prevent them from achieving the consistency they want piano to piano but must also carefully examine which designs either individually or collectively move them away from the original concept to the degree that it slips out of the, in this case, recognizable Steinway range. Different design elements will contain greater or lesser risks and rewards. For example, going to a crowned rib with less compression is a fairly low risk and high reward procedure, especially considering there are many "conventional" manufacturers that do that and also because it removes much of the uncertainty associated with high compression crowning. Changes to the bass scaling, especially the low bass, to enhance the development of the fundamental, are fairly low risk as well. Radical changes to the grain angle and large cutoffs are more risky because they can inhibit the freedom in the panel in certain areas and limit the upper end expressive capacity and power if one isn't very careful. Treble fishes might enhance sustain but can also make the treble sound somewhat thinner and change the quality of the attack. Removing duplexes can allow you to extend the backscale and give more freedom to the bridge in the upper end but the short backscales associated with a duplex scale aliquots may have their own particular influence on attack/sustain relationships. The adding of transition bridges might smooth the transition from tenor to bass but might also change the quality of the low tenor that some won't react favorably to. These are just some considerations. So for the second group, they must first identify the musical qualities that actually characterize a certain manufacturers product before they can begin to even think about what it is that they might change. That alone is a challenge since we don't really have a precise language to do describe any of that. We haven't exactly gotten to the same level with tonal language that the Eskimos have describing snow. Next, they have to identify how far they can deviate from whatever tonal norms they've identified and have it fall in an acceptable range. And finally they have to figure out which design elements will help them avoid some of the pitfalls of the original designs, enhance their musical product and keep things within the expected norms. Not an easy endeavor, but an admirable one. As in many endeavors there is often an attitude that if some is good more must be better. But when it comes to identifying and achieving some characteristic musical outcome this can be dangerous, as we've discussed. Not sure where this is going but until you identify the problem and the goal it's pretty difficult to start looking for the solution. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com Yes, absolutely. But I think that for the most part on this list and on pianotech previously, there has been a purely one-sided presentation of these things and thought I should provide a cautionary counter-story. We, as cauts, are in the position of deciding or helping to decide about our concert instruments, whether replacement or rebuilding/remanufacture. It has been stated often, and correctly IMO, that remanufacture is a perfectly acceptable alternative - with the proviso that whoever is doing that work is competent. (One can argue that in any case it is a bit of a crap shoot, as one can't predict outcomes precisely, but let's leave that to the side). Fred Sturm
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC