I'll go one step further than Ron... I really like the sound.<br>Steve Fujan<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/5/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ron Nossaman</b> <<a href="mailto:rnossaman@cox.net">rnossaman@cox.net
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>> Anybody have an opinion on the Baldwin 6000 (looks like a 52" or so
<br>> upright)? An aquaintance told me he was considering buying one--saying<br>> it had gotten excellent reviews (?)...I didn't ask him from whom.<br>> Personally, Baldwins have never been a favorite of mine, do these new
<br>> ones have the really tight tuning pins? Could anyone speak to the<br>> quality? Does it have one of those goofy painted actions?<br><br>I have no idea what Baldwin is doing to pinblocks or actions<br>these days, but I would not expect any improvement in pin
<br>torque ranges or uniformity. We don't have a surviving Baldwin<br>dealer in the area, so I haven't seen a new one in some time.<br>As far as the 6000 generally though, there are a few specific<br>design things. The bass is very unusual. In most pianos, the
<br>strike point ratio goes from something like 1/16 - 1/12 in the<br>top end, tapering to around 1/8 somewhere in the middle, and<br>continuing that 1/8 clear through the bass. The 6000 continues<br>the ratio progression all through the low tenor and bass, down
<br>to around 1/5 at A-0. People either like the result, or don't,<br>but most everyone notices it's different. The other thing is<br>the "tone extender", an aerospace brass mass load, on the low<br>tenor bridge end.
<br><br>I kind of like the sound.<br><br>Ron N<br></blockquote></div><br>