Circle of Sound

[Overs Pianos]

Hello Richard,

I'm sorry if my previous post offended you, BUT;

You wrote:

>It always amazes me how seemingly difficult it 
>is for people to avoid mixing the purely 
>subjective with the objective in these 
>disscussions. Time and time again we hear how 
>this or that idea or design is <<better>>, or 
>some similar term.  Take Ron O's last post where 
>he compares some very basic design issues 
>between Yamaha/Steinway -- Bösendorfer -- 
>Baldwin -- and his own.. . .  he includes the 
>two following comments..
>
>>Ron O wrote;
>>
>>"I remain highly suspicious of the tonal 
>>negatives, which I believe light plates bring 
>>to the mix."
>>
>>"Another heavy plated and heavily rimmed piano 
>>which has quite outstanding tonal 
>>characteristics once the duplex noise and other 
>>stringing and strike ratio issues are sorted."
>
>
>Both of these are primarily statements that are 
>clearly matters of personal taste,

Agreed, they can't be anything else. You seem to 
subjectively think that I compared 'some very 
basic design issues'. I would say that they are 
'fundamental design issues' which will very 
likely determine the fundamental tonal 
characteristics of an instrument.

>  yet they are presented as fact backed up by 
>some very light analysis of some basic physical 
>functionings relating to the 
>plate/rim/soundboard.

We'll its hardly likely to be a thesis on the 
Pianotech list. But if you feel my experience is 
not of value then just write me off. It's fine by 
me.

>What tonal negatives ?? according to whom ?? 
>What outstanding tonal characteristics... ?? 
>according to whom ??

Clearly, according to me. Notice that I wrote "I 
believe" in the first sentence you quoted. 
Clearly, 'I believe' that there is something in 
the weight of a plate, regarding its influence on 
tonal quality. Certainly I could be wrong, but 
after about twenty five years thinking about this 
plate-weight parameter, I still believe at this 
point in time that its got legs. While I might 
well be wrong, and I do still question the idea, 
I still believe its important.

>Furthermore... none of these really offer us 
>anything of value, if that is to be defined as 
>gaining an understanding as to what kind of 
>specific and objective tonal characteristics are 
>achieved with this or that particular change in 
>any given parameter.  Why cant we just leave out 
>the judgemental bit

Sometimes the judgement bit is all we've got. 
Sometimes we don't know exactly why such and such 
a parameter has the effect that it appears to 
have, but that shouldn't stop us from drawing a 
conclusion. A conclusion is not necessarily false 
just because it can't be documented as fact using 
the current tools at hand.

>....Ok.. I understand any descriptive comment is 
>bound to be a bit coloured... but we could at 
>least avoid such obvious declarations of pure 
>taste.

This discipline will always involve pure taste. 
Sure its subjective, but ultimately we have to 
decide what we believe is the essence of 'good 
tone', and if we are trying to build a worthwhile 
instrument we must also ultimately decide, of all 
the multitudes of variables which can apply to 
any design, which ones will yield the tonal 
qualities we are seeking.

After the decisions are made, an instrument will 
either sink or swim based on its perceived 
merits. I agree with you that we must always try 
to ascertain what are the facts, but with pianos 
the essence of what constitutes good tone cannot 
be prescribed by some rule book or by some stand 
over merchant telling us what is or isn't good. 
Ultimately its going to be decided by what the 
end user likes.

I didn't mean to offend you, and sorry if I have. 
But surely we have to be able to offer an opinion 
on the merits of various design factors based on 
experience. The two pianos, in my experience, 
which initially caused me to believe that plate 
weight was important, were the Baldwin SD-10 and 
the Welmar 6'0 grand. Both have quite massive 
plate thickness out behind the hitch plate (much 
thicker than the plate we use for our 225). The 
SD-10 from memory is well over 16 mm thick, and 
the Welmar is over 20 mm thick at the web between 
the treble and bass bridges. While the original 
workmanship of both pianos seemed to be somewhat 
wanting, both had outstanding sustain and the 
plates seemed to be the facilitating stand-out 
parameter.

I thought my earlier post was quite innocuous. I 
didn't expect someone to jump up and down about 
it.

Ah well, another day at the office.

Ron O.

-- 
OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
    Grand Piano Manufacturers
_______________________

Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au
_______________________