[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[David Love]

Sorry, I meant to add this.  The best performance pianos are those build
pretty close to the edge in terms of expressive power and range.  But
building things close to the edge has certain risks both in terms of
immediate failure and failure in the short term.  For independent rebuilders
who are producing performance pianos the choice (assuming they know how to
get there at all) is how close to the edge.  It's understandable that they
would want to back away enough to insure that they don't cross the line and
end up with something that fails.  It's not always clear when you are
building the beast just where that line is.  But you can back away too far,
play it too safe and end up with something that's just not that exciting,
even dull.  In my view, that's the danger of these designs that seek
ultimate control.  In spite of their apparent innovation, they exist too far
from the edge.  

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com



-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David
Love
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 4:59 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound"

Brent:

I’m a bit confused by your post.  The first group I mentioned was the group
that doesn’t hesitate to make all the design changes they want less
concerned with whether the original tonal signature is maintained.  The
second group uses design changes in order to insure more predictable
outcomes but still targets something that sounds as much like the original
as possible.  The group that tries to do things by the book, as it were, and
simply copy the Steinway model, in this case, is not a group I mentioned
because I don’t consider them people involved in “redesign”.  It sounds like
you are part of that group.   No matter which direction is taken, for the
sake of argument, I’m assuming quality workmanship.  If the workmanship is
poor it may not much matter how you approach it.  

As far as benchmarks, this discussion derives from the earlier one in which
we were talking about whether there was a recognizable Steinway sound or,
more specifically, whether one could recognize when one deviates too far
from that.  So whatever the fifty year old D sounded like in the beginning
is not  really relevant, it’s whether it still falls into the “still a
Steinway sound” range when the redesign or remanufacture is done.   The
issue of performance warranty—a guarantee of a certain sound—is really
something separate and I don’t particularly want to go down that road now.  

My own experience with rib crowned designs is that by itself it is not
enough to take the final product out of the realm of “Steinway sound”.
Having done several over the past several years I would say that particular
feature is a relatively safe one, arguably safer than the range of outcomes
that can occur on compression style boards.  Much depends, however, on the
specifics of the design, the rib scale (very important),  rib feathering,
panel thinning, etc.  Whether the pine ribs give the panel more flexibility
under high compression can’t be looked at on the basis of pine versus spruce
alone, I wouldn’t think.  First it's hard to know exactly how you determine
that it has more flexibility under compression in a real world situation and
harder yet to identify what the tell tale sound of that is.  

Statements like “the Hamburg has a thinner, less driven top end” are easy to
make but, again, how is it you arrive at that conclusion.  I've heard a lot
of Hamburgs where were that top end present on any number of NY D's that I
service, I'd be pretty happy.  

I think it's a little presumptuous to suggest that those who are in the
second group haven't been in the stage laboratory for years.  I think that's
often what drives them to look for other solutions.  One thing to consider
is this.  The pianos that make it to C&A represent a relatively small
percentage of those produced.  I think we would agree on that.  Some pianos
would never make it there, they aren't good enough, and the rest are in the
middle somewhere.  Of the ones that do make it there, how long do they stay
there on average?  Reports on this thread suggest that it's not that long,
maybe 5 years. So why are they retired then?  It's not because the key
bushings wear out or the hammers.  It's because the bellies change and the
qualities that got them to the C&A level may not be present any more.  So
let's even go so far as to give the benefit of the doubt that these more
traditional methods will produce pianos at some percentage rate (relatively
low it would seem) that are nines on a scale of ten, the best performance
pianos to be found and will remain so for 5 years. OK.  But the process will
also produce some twos at an equal percentage rate that will never be
suitable for the concert stage, and some larger group of fours, fives and
sixes.  If you are an independent rebuilder and producing 5 performance
pianos a year (that's a lot) and you believe that you might be able with
some slight design changes get a consistent seven or eight that will last
longer than five years wouldn't you consider it?  Maybe you're giving up the
nines and tens that last for a limited time but you also are giving up the
twos.  I'm not saying that that's the choice necessarily but I think many
rebuilders are wondering whether it is and how that might be accomplished.
For those in group two, I think that's some of the motivation.  Of course,
rebuilders, being who they are, always hope for the magic formula that will
produce nothing but tens.  So far, I don't think that formula exists.  I do
think, however, in an attempt to control the outcomes too much and reduce
any element of chance you do run a real risk of, as Fred said, producing
something that is a step backwards.  The recent experiences of a colleague
of mine as he reported it is, perhaps, one example of that.  

  
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Brent
Fischer
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:14 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound"

David,

   Okay, so I fall into the first group, but I am a concerned when I notch
a bridge or render wire because I know that the original work didn't include
the attitude of a fine tuner determining how that chisel cut in the end
could
be the difference in a perfect unison or how pulling the wire thru the V-bar
and tensioning may be causing a false beat issue later.
   There is no benchmark on how a fifty-year old D may have sounded so
then it becomes a standard empirical default in my opinion. I think my group
is 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  performance
warranty on experimental work?
   Specifically, my belief is installing a crowned rib design on a NY is
highly
risky and immediately departs from known parameters.  Besides workmanship,
the major tonal difference between the Hamburg and NY is spruce crowned ribs
as opposed to flat sugar pine ribs of the NY utilized to give the high
compression
board 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 to
that 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
comes
to 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
and
voicing 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 where
accountability and the paycheck often meet.

Brent