[CAUT] Steinway "sound"

[David Love]

Horace:

Maybe, and I have read some of those patents but I look at it a little
differently.  Many of the design features (patents) may well have come about
as compensations.  In other words, some existing feature was creating a
problem and the tonal output was improved by adding another feature to
either balance it or, perhaps, to offset some negative effect.  The ring
bridge may be a good example of a compensation that not only didn't work
that well but also created other problems and therefore was abandoned.
Perhaps the duplex scale itself (another favorite feature which is
frequently questioned by designers) is another one of those in the following
sense.  There are many who argue that the duplex scale is a particular
feature of the Steinway piano (widely copied now--sort of, more on that
later) that contributes to its characteristic sound in the treble.  Their
conclusion about that may well derive from having heard pianos in which the
duplex was removed or altered in some way (I'm not sure how else you could
come to the conclusion).  But the duplex in isolation may not tell the
entire story here.  Did the duplex idea arise all by itself or was it
something that came about because the designers found something often
lacking in the treble sections of the pianos they were building (maybe poor
sustain or upper partial development) and so looked for a way to try and get
that without changing the design element or execution that was creating the
problem in the first place?  So, if you are doing a redesign and address
that particular issue in the soundboard killer octave section that tends to
create the problem, do you still need the duplex scale to achieve the same
effect?  Maybe not, and, in fact, my experience suggests that might well be
the case.  Also, look at the various duplex scales that now take several
forms.  In the Steinway B it's a relatively short scale whereas in the
Yamaha C7 it's relatively long.  Those two scales not only produce different
frequencies but also have a different impact on how they tie down the
bridge.  On the higher tension Yamaha a short duplex scale might well not
allow the bridge enough freedom of movement, whereas on the B there may be
greater benefit (or tolerance) from a shorter one (though I'm not suggesting
that's necessarily the case). So is that yet another compensation for a
compensation that needed to be modified yet again in order to make its
contribution when maybe addressing the original need for it in the first
place might not have been a better route allowing you to eliminate the
duplex altogether?  I think that's certainly a question that the redesign
people are, or should be, asking.  


So one of the problems facing people who do redesign is identifying which
features are compensatory features that may prove to be unnecessary or even
counterproductive if not changed along with the other changes they are
making.  While I hate sports analogies this one might be apropos.  I've read
that in golf if you want to change some aspect of your swing you have to do
it in even numbers.  Meaning if you change one thing you will really need to
change two because likely you've come up with some compensation for that
initial flaw and if you only change one thing you'll actually create more
problems for yourself.  The same may well be true in the piano redesign
arena.  With a design that tends to produce killer octave problems, to use
our example, you may well need a duplex scale.  But if you can correct the
design problem such that you don't get killer octave problems and get the
same effect of the duplex without having the duplex, then the duplex scale
(as it existed on the original) might not only no longer be necessary but
might even inhibit by virtue of its tendency to tie down the bridge
(perhaps) the full tonal development potential of the new design that
mitigated the need for the duplex in the first place.  So you may well
*need* to change both yet the net effect on the tone may be the same, or
very similar.  

The plot thickens.  For the redesign people it's not just identifying the
original design features that may have problems.  It's also identifying the
compensatory design features that were incorporated to address those
problems such that once the original design is changed they not only may no
longer be needed but might even now contribute in a negative way toward your
goal if left in place.  



David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com



>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.

Horace