<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.18357" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This was the point of my post about "Steinway touch" and Stanwood's metrology.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And to point out that, FWIW, we don't seem to be getting complaints that these revisions have "destroyed the Steinway touch," as contrasted with complaints about the sound of redesigned pianos.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I understand that at least as early as the 1980's Bruce Clark had created a design system (now a program), which he used to redesign problematic piano actions. He chooses not to publish for several reasons, including the fact that it takes some very good shop skills to execute the redesigns.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In a series starting in May, the <EM>Journal</EM> will introduce a protocol and program designed by Darrell Fandrich and John Rhodes, which takes into account the inertia of action parts to control for the dynamic touch response. Their method, and the issues being discussed here, seem to complement each other.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A different issue:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mark Cramer's situation at Brandon University is very special. The school is committed to assertive maintenance through an on-going rebuilding program, and seems to be open to the new technologies (including the Wapin bridge pinning system, if I remember correctly) which Mark has introduced. Because of this I assume the faculty are more fluent in their understanding of varieties of pianos, and they play them in a hall where they can really hear what the piano is doing. The recital hall is (so far as I know) unique, or at least not very common, and I remember the clarity of sound from an event I attended over 10 years ago. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I contrast the situation at Brandon with university recital halls with such poor acoustics that I have had to move the pianos to the corner of the stages to hear well enough to tune with difficulty. I can't judge the sound of a piano in that environment.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In effect we are sometimes talking about pianos that have been delivered to different planets.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed Sutton</FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=erwinspiano@aol.com href="mailto:erwinspiano@aol.com">Dale Erwin</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=caut@ptg.org href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">caut@ptg.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:05 AM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif" color=black size=2><FONT size=2><FONT face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"> I would bet</FONT></FONT> <FONT face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif" color=black size=2>that Stawood protocols probably were driven to fruition by all those unintended consequences you refer to David. The ones that produced action ratios all over the map. And the hammers getting heavier put on high ratio actions from pre-war times.<BR> So,...  Finally after hearing thousands of pianist complain about heavy actions & funky tone, the collective technicians consciousness said "Enough is enough is enough. All fix the  d_ _ _ thing & voila. David Stanwoods protocols were popularized, utilized and refined to the betterment of the piano world. <BR> So I think we have fired the designer<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV style="CLEAR: both"><B><FONT color=indigo size=1><FONT face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><FONT size=2>Dale S. Erwin<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><FONT size=2><FONT size=1>www.Erwinspiano.com</FONT></FONT><BR><FONT size=1>Custom restoration<BR>Ronsen Piano hammers<BR>Join the Weickert felt Revolution<BR>209-577-8397</FONT></FONT><BR>209-985-0990</FONT><FONT size=1><BR></FONT></B><BR><BR></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: arial,helvetica">-----Original Message-----<BR>From: David Love <davidlovepianos@comcast.net><BR>To: caut@ptg.org<BR>Sent: Mon, Mar 7, 2011 8:07 pm<BR>Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound<BR><BR> <DIV id=AOLMsgPart_0_cfb25848-c548-4283-ab18-904d8fdaf738 style="FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><PRE style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><TT>That's assuming that you agree that all the changes that happened were<BR> actually deliberate "design changes". I'm more cynical. I think it's often<BR> more the law of unintended consequences than a conscious decision to change<BR> the design. A change of hammer making protocols or suppliers of felt and<BR> molding produces a hammer that weighs two or three grams more than the<BR> original, with a 16 mm knuckle it results in 7 leads in the bass or,<BR> combined with an inexact plate indexing procedure, sometimes 9 leads.<BR> People complain, eventually they move to 17 mm knuckle, people still<BR> complain, they start trimming the hammer, the 17 mm knuckle doesn't work<BR> that well with the old wippen so they modify all the parts and voila! A new<BR> design of new and improved parts. Or, apropos to this discussion, some well<BR> intentioned individual from the outside decides that the original +3 gram<BR> hammer was a design intention and seeks to modify the action ratio to be<BR> able to handle it, keep the original 3-2-1-0 leading pattern to control<BR> inertia and ends up with 1/2 inch key dip--but damn that thing feels light.<BR> All because the hammer unexpectedly got heavy due to a careless<BR> manufacturing. I'm not suggesting that represents any particular factual<BR> sequence of events but it seems more likely than that each of those was a<BR> conscious design change. <BR> <BR> Of course, since the action ratios do vary quite a bit and different<BR> pianists of different eras got used to all kinds of things, you might have<BR> to make a decision as to what to do and in the process one pianist somewhere<BR> who grew up on 7.0 action ratios and 9 leads in the bass might be unhappy.<BR> But that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a chance and make an executive<BR> decision to put things together in such a way that you think is likely to<BR> please or at least be pleasantly accepted by the great majority. We have to<BR> do that all the time and most venues only have one piano. <BR> <BR> There comes a time in every similar endeavor when you have to close the<BR> book, shoot the designer and build the damn thing (and take your chances).<BR> <BR> <BR> David Love<BR> <A href="http://www.davidlovepianos.com" target=_blank>www.davidlovepianos.com</A><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> This raises an interesting point: Since (like all other <BR> manufacturers of all other products) S&S reserves to itself the right <BR> to change it's specifications in whatever way, and at whatever time <BR> they choose. So...following the logic of that logic (if you will), <BR> it's pretty obvious that (keeping things to actions), the "touch" <BR> would have changed fairly dramatically over time; and, the more one <BR> works on instruments from various periods the more one might come to <BR> this conclusion. And, it might, therefore, follow, that one could <BR> legitimately use whatever parts are contemporaneously available today <BR> in order to attempt to recreate whatever that original touch (and <BR> tone) might have been, and stay within the overall concept of <BR> retaining the "Steinway-ness" of the instrument. That part is all <BR> well and good; and, I think, qualifies as A Very Good Thing.<BR> <BR> On the other hand, when one chooses to follow that logic, one has to <BR> be aware that not every pianist is going to feel ecstatic about <BR> either the sound or the touch. So, another choice one makes in <BR> following the above logic is the one that consciously accepts that <BR> one's final product may not be acceptable to one or more <BR> pianists. If one has multiple performance instruments, that may be <BR> cool, because, presumably (since one might choose to leave at least <BR> one with a relatively current "stock" setup) there would be other <BR> instruments from which to choose, and it wouldn't matter so much if <BR> one were not deemed satisfactory. However, if one has only one <BR> performance instrument available in a given space, one might wind up <BR> with a fairly serious problem.<BR> <BR> FWIW, statements like the one Jennie relates can often be traced back <BR> to the sales pitches developed by the old Piano Travelers' <BR> Association. While in the context Jennie relates, the brand name is <BR> Steinway, many of these statements/pitches were developed to be used <BR> by a Traveler in their day-to-day work, and modified as necessary to <BR> fit whatever brand happened to be on the truck.<BR> <BR> Best.<BR> <BR> Horace<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </TT></PRE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>