[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[Horace Greeley]

David,

At 04:59 PM 2/18/2011, you wrote:
>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.

While I generally agree, I'm not sure that "by 
the book" really applies here.  It's important to 
remember that, for many years (decades) the 
production line was, in effect, a 
laboratory.  That being the case,  much depends 
on when something went through.  There are too 
many variables to generalize too broadly.

>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.

I think Fostle goes on at some length about how 
and why the tell tale sound developed.

In any event, the nominally "distinctive" S&S 
sound has definitely morphed over time; 
especially since recordings and media 
reproduction have come to be so culturally 
important.  Slonimsky has something so say about 
this, but I can't presently remember which book 
of his includes it other than the book was published in the late 1950s.

>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.

Both of these positions are generalizations which 
are subject to specific deviation; and, both are, 
in my experience, true...and, not true.

>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.

Perhaps; although I am not fully convinced.

>  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.

Yes.

>  Some pianos
>would never make it there, they aren't good enough, and the rest are in the
>middle somewhere.

Actually, there's a catch here.  Just because an 
instrument is taken into the C&A pool does not 
automatically mean that it is the top of the 
heap.  In fact, from an historical standpoint, 
many of the instruments that wind up in the 
overall C&A pool are there because it has been a 
relatively safe place in which to keep 
them.  That is, they are problematic in one or 
more ways, and, since in many major markets C&A 
instruments are used in recording studios and 
garden parties as much as they are on concert 
stages, the problems can be masked in various ways.

I remember on B in which, under certain climatic 
conditions, had bridge pins on the lower portion 
of the tenor portion of the bridge (that is, 
under the plate) that would lock up tight against 
the plate and kill that portion of the 
scale.  The answer was simple, that instrument 
only went to studios in which the venue would 
keep the humidity and temperature very low.

>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.

That depends.  In the old days, some instruments 
were maintained for well over 12 or 15 
years.  Now days, except for those "owned"/leased 
by rental companies, they are rotated out more 
based on depreciation than on any other issue.

>So why are they retired then?

As noted above, it's mostly depreciation and/or damage.

>  It's not because the key
>bushings wear out or the hammers.

No...definitely not the hammers...these days, 
unless the piano is pretty new, the hammers are 
shot within five years, sometimes much less.

>It's because the bellies change and the
>qualities that got them to the C&A level may not be present any more.

While that may have been true at one time, it has 
not been the case since 1987, at least.  One of 
the first things the Birminghams did when they 
bought the company was to liquidate depreciated 
stock that was still in service.  This did a 
couple of very important things for them.  First, 
it picked them up a very quick profit after 
purchase.  Second, and, historically for our 
purposes, much more importantly, the completely 
cleared the decks of "old style" pianos ("old" as 
mostly in action, hammer and production 
changes).  In one fell swoop, so to speak, they 
completely removed from the general public eye 
the historical sound, touch and response of what 
the piano had been for decades.  What has 
followed since has been substantively different.

>  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.

OK...we can stipulate to that.

>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.

Spot on.

>  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?

Perhaps, yes.

>  Maybe you're giving up the
>nines and tens that last for a limited time but you also are giving up the
>twos.

Hmmm...perhaps.  I'm not sure that this process is that cut and dried.

>   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.

Right.

>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.

Agreed.

>  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.

While I agree in principle, I also think it's 
important to note that, from a philosophical 
standpoint, one really cannot expect a world in 
which everything is 8's to 10's...if nothing 
winds up being a 1 or a 2, then there is nothing 
really present against which to compare.

Best.

Horace



>
>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