Dissing S&S rails (:)}}?

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Ron Nossaman wrote:

> . . . .  If you question whether
> the rails are responsible for any detectable accoustic properties, that
> ought to be pretty easy to ascertain. Ask someone who has swapped out a
> Steinway tubular rail action in favor of a more conventional system if the
> quality of sound was degraded by the process. Del?

Actually they both played and sounded much better.  Of course they also got new
soundboards, strings, hammers, etc., which may have had something to do with the
sound.  In other words, I can't really give you an answer.  However... I've
listened to a multitude of theories about the mystical qualities of various
features of the piano for several decades, now.  I'm at the point of not
believing much of anything that can't be proven.

Aside from the Renner having somewhat stiffer action rails and somewhat better
action geometry, there is really very little functional difference between the
Renner stack with its laminated wood rails and the Steinway action with its
brass rails.  Assuming that the butterfly wippen design is used in each, of
course.  Which now generally the case.

I should point out that with the easy availability of good replacement wippens
and shanks, there is less incentive to replace a Steinway stack with a Renner
stack.  Some years ago this was really the only way to get good new action parts
in a Steinway piano.  The only alternative was to use new parts from Steinway
complete with Teflon bushings, poorly aligned and assembled components, and
incorrect geometry.



> >I'll bet that Steinway
> >has done some tests and a standard wooden rail type action _would_ change
> >the sound of the piano somewhat.
>
> * Perhaps they have, but I doubt that it would.

I doubt it as well.

-- ddf