Farrell wrote: > Ooooo Richard. I suspect one might be able to argue the sampling size was a tad small. Commentary below :) > Was the action ratio the only difference between these two pianos? Stanwoodized action had Half High SWs, average ratio of 5.6, max frontweights and BW around 40 - 42. Newer stock Steinway has roughly Half Medium SW's, ratio looks to be about 6.0 and BW around 38... havent looked closely at FW's but imagine as is typical there is quite a variance in the amount of FW. > > > Good food for thought though. > > Terry Farrell > > --- Sure.... and it wasnt a completely fair blind test either. But I did as best as I could to make it impartial, and I know my students. They mostly have avoided the older C (the one we did the Stanwood on), but now they are all enthused, and it will be interesting to see what they say in the days to come. Still, this was a mixed group, and not every one of them is happy with everything I do at the school. I suppose thats normal enough. Same thing goes with the proffessors. Yet all so far have come with such similiar commentary without prompting from me that it is difficult to ignore.... especially when it matches expected results based on what we know about actions, hammer weights, and leverage. Really, when you come to think of it... this is that same old discussion, same old dilema. Heavy hammers sound better, but lighter ratios play better..... only now the playing field has changed... we know how to make heavier hammered pianos play much better then we did some years ago. The arguement is still there... and the logic behind both camps still holds, but the spectrum for what can easily be made to work and please the greatest majority has been significantly expanded. At least, thats my take on it all. Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC