Will, Although, my comments were not directed at you, you do make a good argument for your "cause".<G> I'm a bit confused with your one statement: "K-52's are used for low end concert service,....!!! What the heck is that? Not sure what you mean. As for the modern K-52 being the same, (for the most part), as the olde ones, I would have to say "not even close! Steinway trashed all of their design/jigs/etc.when they discontiunued it. When they decided to start making it again, they used an olde one for their example to make new designs/jigs/mockups, etc. They missed the mark horribly, IMO. The first ones that came off the line, in the late 70's/early 80's were atrocious, IMO. They are improved, but I don't consider the new ones to be half as good as the old ones. Of course that's just me, (the one who loves the olde stuff<G>) If a client wants a piano to dampen like a new piano, then so be it. However, my recommendation would to be to buy a new piano!l The piano of today, is, IMO, a far cry from the glorius ones of the early 20th century. Discerning ears do tell the difference and seem to want that "olde" sound. I know I do.<G> Most pianos of today's manufacture are far more crystaline than their ancestors. This is the "modern" ear and is the result of recording studios manipulation of what they, in their infinite wisdom, think we want to hear. I think we can attribute to the massive din that we are all subjected to! i.e. the increasing Deafness of the general population. My comment re. the M & H means exactly what I said. The new ones, coming off the line, today, ain't even close to the old M & Hs IMO. They've changed the scale, the action, the hammers, etc., to the point that it is more a S&S than it is a M & H. Is that a bad thing? Probably not. I just don't like that piano, in it's present form, (Musically or Mechanically)! Of course, again, that's just me.<G> In short, we should agree to disagree in the damper realm.<G> I know I'm going to get major flack for some of my comments, so be it there as well.<G> Regards, Joe Joe Garrett, R.P.T. Captain of the Tool Police Squares R I ----- Original Message ----- From: Encore Pianos To: joegarrett at earthlink.net;pianotech at ptg.org Sent: 2/8/2011 9:06:41 AM Subject: RE: [pianotech] re. Changing dampers on a Steinway Upright Well, Joe, I think you bring up some interesting ideas If your overriding concern/preference is to preserve or duplicate what is there, then that is a choice that you can properly make. With instruments that are quite elderly and likely to be considered an antique, I am completely reluctant to make any changes in the design of the instrument. Indeed, I do not touch them at all and refer these instruments to the specialists who are trained to take care of them because I fear destroying their value as antiques by making uninformed decisions concerning their restoration. I’m with you so far. Changes in damper system design are part of the evolution of the instrument. The early pianos had primitive damping systems, but also did not require the damping efficiency of modern pianos because they were not as loud or sustaining, and musical ears of that time had different expectations of what damping should be. As the tensions and number of strings increased, as soundboards were steadily improved towards what we would consider modern designs (starting in the last 100 to 130 years), the dampers had a lot more work to do because there was a lot more energy to shut off. And the expectations of the artists changed too. (I would submit that the public had little to do with these preferences, as they were probably as oblivious as they are today). It was the artists who demanded change as the instrument evolved, and the manufacturers responded to their desires with design changes that moved the instrument forward. Let’s go back to the trusty old 1902 Steinway upright that I am redesigning the damper system for in my example of before. Is this what we would consider a “modern” piano?. If we are comparing it to a modern K-52, I would submit that it is. Most of the differences between the two lie in the action. The soundboard system and stringing scale are pretty similar. Damping requirements are going to be about the same, if we are holding the two instruments to a single standard of damping efficiency. For me, the old damper system design is not adequate. K-52’s are used for low end concert service, and I would submit that musicians would not be satisfied with the older style, and would prefer the modern K-52 damper design because it simply damps better and is more controllable. We need to have that conversation with our customer as to what their expectations for their instrument are. If they prefer that it remain as much like it was as possible, then I would make decisions in my restoration process to best respect that. And that could mean preserving the damper system more or less as it was, except with new felt that duplicates the old. That is clearly what you do, fair enough. But when I discuss with my customers how I can improve the damping of the piano by making modifications, they make the decision to allow me to go ahead. And they are always happy with how much better the damping is, because that is important to them musically. A number of us who do make such modifications DO understand what is going on. It IS an improvement in damping. As for Mason and Hamlin trying to be what it is not, please explain. As for the makers choosing to keep things the same, where does inertia and indifference fit in here? J Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Garrett Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:11 AM To: pianotech Subject: [pianotech] re. Changing dampers on a Steinway Upright Frank said: "Consider the tiny little dampers even on concert grands of 100 or so years ago (not to mention square pianos!). It would appear that damping efficiency was not a great priority back then. Of course, we can significantly improve damping efficiency fairly easily, today. As with any design change, consideration must be given to preserving the original design vs. improving performance. I am generally inclined to improve performance unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise." Frank, Most techs are too quick to "change" what they don't understand, IMO. You are somewhat correct, in your assumption "...that damping efficiency was not a great priority back then." I'm sure you are aware that most manufacturers made Overdamper Uprights right beside "modern" uprights. And, "modern" Grands right along side of Square Grands. Have you ever considered WHY? I would submit, to you, Consumer Demand is the reason. It is my supposition that there was a demand for that "Sound", (which I further imagine as a replica of the sound of a previous time, i.e. early 1800's - "just like grandma's piano"!) By the late 1800's the industry KNEW how to make a piano dampen, (in our eyes/ears), properly. They just chose not to make them all the same. (Like so many cookie cutter types of today, I might add!) For some reason, our society, (and the musical society), wants "sameness". Personally, I prefer the wild differ ences of bygone eras. The huge differences of the Grotrians/Steinways/Mason-Hamlins/Pleyels/etc, was what MADE those companies, IMO. Today, we hear a Mason Hamlin that is trying to be something it is not. The same applies to most other manufacturers, as well, IMO. Keeping that in mind, please do not rush to Change what you percieve to be an improvement, unless, it really is an "improvement"! In the case of Square Grands, do not EVER try to install unichord/bichord/trichord dampers! You will create the biggest mess you can possibly imagine. I've had to untangle many of such messes. The same goes for over-damper uprights. Please do not do that?!! IF a client complains about "poor damping" in an instrument, we are quick to rush in and say: "I can fix that"..(by altering the design). Many such re-designs negate any of the character of what WAS that individual piano. Hence, more "cookie cutter crap", IMO. Thanks for listening, Regards, Joe Joe Garrett, R.P.T. Captain of the Tool Police Squares R I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110208/18e3a8f1/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC