[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[Horace Greeley]

Hi,

At 07:22 PM 2/18/2011, you wrote:
>Hey David,
>
>    Thanks for that clarification. I was not quite sure on the group
>plan but ya, I fit mostly into the factory book, although I still want
>to install a tension resonator in a D before I'm done. The hard part
>is going to be glueing an additional lamination around the piano to
>cover up the plugs hiding the bolt heads. The five year thing is
>just a conspiracy plan between the factory and dealer to sell them
>off for the most they can get before they are too trashed.

Yup...I concur.  One "proof" of that, if you 
will, is to look at the differences found between 
pianos owned/leased to dealers, and (by and 
large...I admit that there are exceptions) those owned by rental agencies.

>    I would settle for more sevens and eights, however if they would
>set up practice rooms at Julliard for new C&A pianos and have
>performance majors really break them in, open them up, and get
>some tonal responsiveness going I think alot of those twos would
>be sevens or better.

This has been a consistent complaint of artists 
for decades.  When confronted with a "new" piano, 
many of them groan...inwardly if not 
outwardly...they know that they have their work 
cut out for them, and do not relish the 
process.  A number of years ago, several of us 
suggested installing a dedicated pounding machine 
in/adjacent to the selection room at the factory, 
and that it be reserved for pianos being prepared 
for selection, either for clients or for 
C&A.  I'm convinced that, had that suggestion 
been followed, there would be more satisfied 
customers out there.  Of course, those of us who 
get to work on the pianos that have not been so 
treated reap the financial reward of that 
failing, so, perhaps it's just as well that they didn't like the suggestion.

>    With the current state of available wood selection and kiln drying
>methods that have been accelerated over the decades I have to really
>wonder if that isn't one of the more important core issues that we
>overlook in these discussions. I think we have lost much of the spruce
>that had slightly wider earlywood rings transitioning into latewood. Better
>growth seasoning if you will. I'm not a wood technologist but I firmly
>believe there is a correlation between slower seasoned spruce, that
>isn't rushed through the steam kiln to dry out the bound water, and
>how a belly ages into a performance sound. Don't you think that
>redesign starts there?

Here I'll put in a plug for Del's annotated 
edition of "Piano Tone Building".  Many of the 
subjects that have occupied a good deal of time 
in the last couple of years are addressed in the 
conventions and meetings related in that 
book.  Del has done us all a tremendous service 
in bringing it forward and adding from his own voluminous knowledge.

Best.

Horace



>Brent
>
>--- On Fri, 2/18/11, 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: Friday, February 18, 2011, 5:59 PM
>
>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 se 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
>