[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[Dale Erwin]

 Thanks
  Wish I could have said it that well. 

 

Dale S. Erwin




 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Thu, Feb 17, 2011 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound"


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


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110218/9067faeb/attachment-0001.htm>