The underlying assumption of the various techniques of the "redesigners" is what, as far as I can tell, seems to be a completely unsupported claim to a superior result, something which, if real, all would applaud. But the only reality that I can see here in this context are words and ideas only, both of which may well be questioned. What does it mean when one hears over and over: " These methods and techniques will achieve a superior result, " and in the next breath, "The results are superior because we have used these methods." Surely few would concede anything to such an argument, except, perhaps laughter. The claimed result may well be superior, I don't know. What I do know is that there is a very high bar to be overcome in extant, "deficient" designs. That bar is represented by a known quantity in my experience and, as near as I can tell, in that of many, many others. This is the very high quality sound of the many "amazing" pianos to repeat Phil F.'s description that exist out there inspite of the many "deficiencies" the redesigners purport to correct. Similarly, and, again, I ask what does it mean when one hears : "These methods produce a superior performance" and, again in the same breath, "Because we use these methods the performance is superior." Again, what is a known quantity is the ability of many unredesigned instruments, and instruments in need of attention, to deliver, at the least, some level of reasonably acceptable performance witness the Horowitz piano recently commented upon here. I ardently hope I don't have to suffer the outraged commentary of those whose only contribution will be to loudly state the obvious: the many possible improvements that can be made in all kinds of touch and sound by techniques conventional and otherwise. Nevertheless, do these have to be reached by completely transcending the fundamental nature and design of the instrument, negating its very essence, so to speak, and tossing the very thing the owner is likely to have acquired it for in the first place, and which maintains, rightly or wrongly its value in the marketplace, out the door? I rather doubt it. Furthermore, with regard to "performance" it is not likely that the actual uses of these "deficient designs", etc. etc. over the last 130 years or so by those who have in reality used them in all kinds public venues and purposes, actually sweating out the results of real performances, and not mere design expectations, along with other uses elsewhere, represents an incomparably stricter, more severe test? Both in number and degree, the extent of the so-called performance which the Gentlemen of Redesign aim at by way of comparison to the more conventional designs they so vehemently assert to have transcended in all respects, can be but an insignificant fraction of the incidents of succesful usuage of the past in whatever setting despite the many purported, limiting, "deficiencies" constantly announced with loud fanfare. Were I a juror answering a question in the judge's charge to the jury asking whether numerous redesign aspects had abrogated the very nature of the instrument itself, by way of Ed's point, and, further, possibly lessened its value, I in good conscience would have to answer in the affirmative. Also, with all due respect, the statement below indicating a preference on the part of Steinway for a lesser sound, seems trivial in every respect and well demonstrates the circular, tautalogical approach touched on above. Now having said all of this I still say - please redesign away -as I see nothing sacrosanct about the instrument providing the owner agrees, but leave the absolutist claims to your customers as they may have some basis upon which to form a belief on them. Regards, Robin Hufford David Love wrote: > That's an interesting statement. I wonder how Steinway would interpret > that. In other words, this piano can sound better, but let's leave it > sounding less good so that it's more like a Steinway. > > David Love > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > > > How far can a Steinway get its sound > > improved without sounding like something other than a Steinway? > > Ed Foote RPT > > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/ > > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC