[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[Horace Greeley]

Hi, David,

At 06:10 AM 2/19/2011, you wrote:
>Horace:
>
>Some good points.  I was trying to walk that fine line between throwing out
>some general principles without making generalizations.

Yes, tough to do in a business in which the rules are so definited by 
the exceptions to them.

>   There are trends
>that we can recognize if we look and while generalizations can be dangerous
>so can treating every piano as if it's a completely unique entity and we are
>really clueless as to why it came out like it did.

Precisely.

>That being said, there are still some "unknown unknowns" (again to quote
>that famous piano builder Rumsfeld) that contribute to the outcome of any
>one particular piano.  That might just be how all the puzzle parts fit
>together and, moreover, which puzzle parts.

I really think that this is one area in which reading patent 
applications can be of great help.  Even though one has to wade 
through the arcane verbiage of patent law (which has really changed 
over time), we get a much better look at the thinking/reasoning 
behind an eventual manufacturing outcome than we otherwise might.

>For example, let's take diaphragmizing (one of my favorite areas to be
>thinking about these days), the fully diaphragmized panel has a great deal
>more flexibility than the one that prior to that was tapered judiciously
>behind the bass bridge and around the bent side but was pretty much left
>alone on the straight side.

Right.

>   That has its benefits in creating more power
>right out of the box but on a compression assembly may have a down side in
>that it weakens the part of the assembly that supports crown, the panel, and
>the boards change rather quickly, usually not for the better.

Yes.

>   Yet it is
>interesting to note that some (I can't speak for all) rib crowned builders
>don't fully diaphragmize the panel when in fact a full diaphragmization
>might be a real benefit in opening up what otherwise (say with a very large
>bass cutoff installed) might produce something that lacks enough mobility.

Yes.

>They could do that without the fear of weakening the panel because panel
>strength isn't needed to support crown in those assemblies, the ribs are
>doing more of the work.

Right.

>Conceivably you might be able to achieve a very
>similar result to a conventional compression board (with partial
>diaphragmization) using a rib crowned and supported method that is fully
>diaphragmized.  Two different parts of the puzzle that fit together to
>produce a very similar outcome.

Yes; and I think that is a viable direction.

>Anyway, there may be other combinatorial factors some of which happen by
>accident that are very difficult to know about that create outcomes (both
>positive and negative) that we have a hard time explaining.  I think that
>helps to fuel the debate.

Yes...one factor which I continue to think will have an increasing 
role in the future is laminated boards.  Ron O has written 
extensively on this.  I'm enough of a dinosaur that I thought the 
experimental ones made by Bose (not Kimball) some years ago made very 
good musical sense.  Sadly, when the designs moved over to Kimball, 
they were compromised to the point that they could not function as well.

As you note...more food for the debate.

Cheers!

Horace



>David Love
>www.davidlovepianos.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Horace
>Greeley
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:06 PM
>To: caut at ptg.org
>Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound"
>
>
>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.
>
>
><snip>