brash failure

[A440A at aol.com]

Ron writes
 

>>A piano is still not a violin, and a piano soundboard is still 

not carved to it's crowned shape. Thus, this comparison is 

still not a valid one now matter how many times it's presented.<, 

      Then compare the flat-top Martin guitar of 1945 with a new one.  It is 
a solid spruce panel, butt-jointed across a set of ribs, subjected to 
compression and tension.  There is nothing in the older spruce that demonstrates 
deterioration. In fact, it seems, and the market among the real experts supports, 
that the older wood has superior tonal qualities that the new wood does not.  


 
>>And you've never seen a 

shot 80 year old bridge cap, or did maple get an exemption 

too, but only in certain special bridge caps?<

      I have seen 80 year old bridge caps that were shot, but I have seen 
more of them that were intact.  The cheaper the piano, it seems the higher the 
incident of bad caps, (Knabe seems to be an exception).  


> How is it that my 1920 Steinway M has virtually no 

> false-beating strings, no cracks behind the bridge pins, etc.  and this 
2001 D 

> has at least 7 un-tunable unisons due to poor pin termination.


>>Based on that extensive cross section, it 

surely has to be the superior wood of 80 years ago. There  could be no other 
possibility. <

    (Saracasm not withstanding)  I personally own 7 Steinways of older 
vintage, and every single one of them has less false beating strings than any new 
one I have seen in the last few years.  I also maintain dozens of older pianos 
and they correlate with this.  In fact, after 30 years of taking care of grand 
pianos, I am going to have to consider my experience "extensive", and I have 
seen nothing that tells me high quality wood, properly used, deteriorates. 

>>So why aren't you recovering 

knuckles and re-bushing those old shanks instead of replacing 

them? How about bushing, leathering, and felting the old 

wippens while you're at it? << 

  Time is money,  I am not working as a conservator at a museum.  The 
difference in quality of wood is insufficient to justify the additional time in 
rebuilding the parts.  

>>You're apparently throwing out 

superior wood and replacing it with inferior. How those new 

inferior maple shanks will work better than those better 

quality originals, which could have deteriorated to the point 

where new would be better, even though the bridge cap didn't, 

is something I doubt I'll ever connect without hurting myself. << 

     The efficacy of replacement of action parts has nothing to do with the 
wood.  In the late '70's, when there was a dearth of parts for rebuilders, I 
rebushed, reclothed, repinned, and resprung quite a few actions.  Those pianos 
are still in professional use today, and the age of the wood is no handicap, at 
all. 
 


>     I believe that a very fine soundboard could be made with old spruce 

> reattached to new ribs. 


>>Almost certainly, depending on your construction method. But 

why would you if that nice dry brittle soundboard still 

produces such fine response?>>

     Ron, I don't see the logic in this question.  Given that the soundboard 
is an assembly, it is hard to blame the loss of tone on one simple component.  
I don't think that the spruce is supporting anything, but the ribs can 
certainly distort under extended load.  It seems to me that you are relying on straw 
man caricatures to support a preconceived view that old wood is inferior 
wood.  My experience is something different.  
Regards, 

Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html