<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>It could and it has.  Your take on my meaning is correct.  Early 20th century iterations seemed to have a more integrated concept even if there were some warts.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’m not sure that consistency was part of the plan, exactly.   Rib scales vary on boards of similar models, for example.  Was that because the workers were missing the mark or were workers given a range of acceptable parameters and those differences accounted for different outcomes.  Perhaps that was a desirable thing.  Or panel thinning, for example.  Panel thinning was done by hand with a plane.  Some variation was inevitable there as well.  Fazioli does that with a computer guided router or something similar.  Computer driven manufacturing certainly produces more consistent outcomes.  But some variability can be a good thing if you want to see how small differences might impact the overall sound.   The “distinct personality” euphemism is something I’ve generally dismissed as a cover for less than optimal outcomes.  But leeway in execution can have its benefits too, at least with bellies.  You get to see what happens.   Actions, well, that’s a different story.   I would argue for precise and uniform execution in that area.  Steinway has been lacking there for reasons we’ve discussed in previous conversations (inconsistent capstan placement mostly).  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Re the two list comments.  I agree.  The existence of two lists is not doing either one any good.  The discussions that happened before the advent of the new list were more in depth and interesting, albeit more volatile.  Though I will surely be heavily criticized for this comment, it would be best for participation if they just shut down one or the other.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>David Love<o:p></o:p>www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:16 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Not really, this subject could turn into War and Peace, couldn’t it?  J  But, fair enough.  I think the gist of my question was if you were moving back towards Original Principles (whatever they are!) ala Steinway in your work.  But I take you to mean here that the design of a piano is a complex, interactive system where making changes in one place can sometimes have unintended consequences in others, so one must always be mindful.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I can’t help but think that the factory drifted away from ways of executing procedures that resulted in very consistent, high quality work, having forgotten why they had established those protocols in the first place.  The 20’s was likely a time when the factory had worked hard to evolve these standards and really had their shit together.  Rebuilding those pianos seemed easier to get a pleasing result in my experience, because so many things were set up well originally.  Steinways from the 1940’s on are quite a different animal in these respects.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I have noticed that it is taking place in two different places.  The fact that we have two lists has diminished the vitality of the discussion, and the number of people participating.  A couple of years ago, some incredibly interesting threads would get going that would continue for a long time.   A number of highly knowledgeable people would engage at great depth.  Incredibly interesting and educational.  Blew the journal out of the water in what it could give anyone who was interested.  Those discussions are, with rare exception, for the most part gone.  That’s sad, and completely lost to those who have made the changes to Pianotech and who will make the decisions for the future.   They don’t look at it deeply enough to know the difference, because they don’t participate in the process.  Ah, the Peter Principle.    <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will   <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p></div></body></html>