[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[Brent Fischer]

David,
   Okay, so I fall into the first group, but I am a concerned when I notcha bridge or render wire because I know that the original work didn't includethe attitude of a fine tuner determining how that chisel cut in the end couldbe the difference in a perfect unison or how pulling the wire thru the V-barand tensioning may be causing a false beat issue later.   There is no benchmark on how a fifty-year old D may have sounded sothen it becomes a standard empirical default in my opinion. I think my groupis just trying to improve craftsmanship without changing the engine specs.If those in your second group tweaks each redesign, since it's in their genes, who has a handle on expectation outcomes and do they provide a  performancewarranty on experimental work?   Specifically, my belief is installing a crowned rib design on a NY is highlyrisky and immediately departs from known parameters.  Besides workmanship,the major tonal difference between the
 Hamburg and NY is spruce crowned ribsas opposed to flat sugar pine ribs of the NY utilized to give the high compressionboard more flexibility. The result is the Hamburg has a thinner, less driven top end.New York combines bridge crowning that increases compression as well. Also, with keybed cavity resonance that accelerates responsiveness, we're back tothat tonal imprint thing, in the end it all works as an inclusive formula and anything else becomes deviating from the known to unknown. Like you said when it comesto achieving musical standards with a more is better attitude I think that it also creates a mindset that the redesign needs to be audibly better than factory to validate the work.   I think the best laboratory is just being on a stage, by yourself, tuning andvoicing year after year, perhaps the second group should walk in those shoes more often. Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk about it but it's whereaccountability and the paycheck
 often meet.
Brent--- On Thu, 2/17/11, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> wrote:

From: David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound"
To: caut at ptg.org
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 11:55 PM

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/20110218/70f64430/attachment.htm>