[CAUT] Steinway sound

[David Love]

I don't know about a "non-steinway" touch but the Stanwood system users sometimes push the lower limits of action ratios with the belief that if low inertia is good, lower is even better.  I'm starting to trend the other way, higher action ratios, lighter hammers, more traditional regulations specs and medium inertia targets both for tone and response.



David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
(sent from bb)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Erwin <erwinspiano at aol.com>
Sender: caut-bounces at ptg.org
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:29:53 
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Reply-To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound

I find smoke and mirrors very entertaining,...possibly illusionary...  :)
 

 

Dale S. Erwin
www.Erwinspiano.com
Custom restoration
Ronsen Piano hammers
Join the Weickert felt Revolution
209-577-8397
209-985-0990



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeannie Grassi <jcgrassi at earthlink.net>
To: Ed  Sutton <ed440 at mindspring.com>; caut at ptg.org
Sent: Mon, Mar 7, 2011 11:22 am
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound


And I heard a Steinway salesman who was attempting to sell an 1890s K with all, I mean all, original parts say,   "Now that's the true Steinway touch!"
Just sayin..... : :>)


jeannie


On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Ed Sutton wrote:



For what it's worth, here is another question:
 
David Stanwood's Touchweight Metrology formulas (ca. 1995) have brought about a revolution (or evolutionary change) in action rebuilding, including, I think it's fair to say, a small cottage industry in redesigning Steinway actions.
 
Is anyone complaining that these instruments "Don't have the Steinway touch?"
 
(I have heard a Steinway trained salesman say "If you want the Steinway touch, you've got to have a genuine Steinway!")
 
Ed Sutton
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Erwin
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound


   I'm good with this statement Horace. 
  In my own practice I have been trying in most cases to not deviate to far from the core tonal expectations for several reasons.
1.  I like the basic Steinway sound at its best, & so do many ears
2. I'm conservative with my clients pianos again trying to enhance the best components of the tone.
3. Redesigning the piano too much can influence its marketability in the minds of some.  For others they would find it a plus to own a Hot Rod so to speak. Hey, different strokes.

 I personally prefer to judge the piano by its sound not the design. That is..... what pianist do. They don't look under the hood. 
  Heres the question. What constitutes a redesign?  Most guys out in small shops are not compression crowning there boards but  crowning the ribs to some degree to support crown. Drying the board far less. Neither is a Steinway parameter. This is our primary deviation. Do these pianos sound like Steinways? It doesn't matter what I think if the client likes them.
 
So here is an opportunity to see my The Erwin & Sons Re- manufactured 1930s Steinway B Hot Rod on display if you'll are coming to the WEST-PACS. in S.F. next week.  It will be there in the hall and in the Ronsen Class room.
  Dale 

 

> 
> In any event, I very much like Brent's concept of complimenting > whatever design might exist "without alienating the core tonal > expectations..."; and working in smaller venues while new designs > are tested more thoroughly to see what does and does not stand up > to performance needs and expectations. That is a very wide field > of tone and response to explore, with tremendous room for > variation; and, as Brent notes, no one's career or reputation winds > up on the line. 
> 
> Developing things along these kinds of lines sounds to me like > everyone wins...and that qualifies as a Very Good Thing. 
> 
> Best. 
> 
> Horace 
> 
> 






=
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110307/746befd7/attachment.htm>