<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 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>“The more pianos I rebuild (bellies and actions) and the more I have been involved with design changes, the more I gravitate back to the original concept (with tweaks of course).”  Would you care to elaborate on this a bit more?<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will Truitt<o:p></o:p><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 David Love Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12:11 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>Wine is good for nit picking, though I prefer  two pints of Guinness.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’m not saying that the 1920’s might not have been more consistent (I don’t really know, honestly), but at this point they are mostly just old and so are being redone anyway and it doesn’t matter that much.   Sure, I have some 1920s pianos whose bellies have survived well (and many that haven’t or weren’t that good to begin with).  I’m just saying that whatever they were then they mostly aren’t that now—in the words of BB King, “the thrill is gone, it’s gone for good.  I was thinking more about the bellies than the actions but the actions also have their problems.  I’ve seen 1920ish actions vary quite a bit and seen 30’s and 40’s actions with ratios approaching 7.0 (and let’s not forget the wonderful verdigris years).   The early iterations of the accelerated actions were not that well executed and the later ones might have been worse.  Mixing high key ratios with 16 mm knuckles and monster hammers was a recipe for 8 leads in the keys.  That being said, I’ve modified several of these (without new keys) with 17 mm knuckles (no choice), modest capstan moves, fixing the spread, appropriate weight hammer and they play beautifully.   Vintage can be a factor but when rebuilding with a new belly, block bridge caps, action then what was there to start with is of little consequence.   That was really my point.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Personally, I love the 1920’s pianos because people buy them often without inspection expecting them to be great.  When they aren’t, I get a new project.  I love the Steinway piano. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Seriously, what I do like about Steinways of that period is the general concept that came together: low tension scale, lightweight soundboard, soft ,very light hammer with highish action ratio to achieve adequate force by increased velocity.  It worked well and I personally like that tonal concept—at least in smaller pianos.  The executions in various periods had some problems and these problems often appeared in times of transition or with changes in materials (hammers in particular).  The 1920’s seems like a time in which the overall package was more unified and in sync.  Surprisingly, when rebuilding these pianos people rarely adhere to that original concept.  Actions are changed to modern ratios with heavier and harder hammers (artificially or otherwise) and bellies are modified with heavier rib scales and other changes while using the same basic scale design.  Since Steinway itself has been inconsistent in unifying these three elements over the decades (string scale, belly, hammer), and made changes in the soundboard design (think full diaphragmizing), rib scales, actions ratios, hammers and hammer weights, etc., it’s hard to argue what is or is not Steinway like when a change is made.  In that respect, I will say that my favorite period is, in fact, the 1920’s, not because the pianos are now still great pianos, but because the concept and execution at that time seemed to be more faithful to the qualities that established them in the first place and more unified.  I’m not sure what they are doing now.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The more pianos I rebuild (bellies and actions) and the more I have been involved with design changes, the more I gravitate back to the original concept (with tweaks of course).   All this discussions about whether it’s a Steinway or not is, of course, silly.  They’ve done it as many different ways as there are pianos practically.  The real questions is what made the great Steinways great.  In my view, it wasn’t a period necessarily but the specifics of a particular design and execution.  Trying to narrow that down and then using modern technology to repeat that consistently is the goal, at least mine.  A few minor modifications is ok, as long as it produces something conceptually consistent and that makes tonal sense (for the player, btw).  Arguments about whether or not it’s a Steinway if you put a Renner action in it are a waste of time, something we all have less and less of.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Well I’ve digressed but Guinness will do that to you.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>David Love<o:p></o:p><a href="http://www.davidlovepianos.com">www.davidlovepianos.com</a><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]">[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]</a> On Behalf Of Ed Foote Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:46 PM To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p>Hi David, I might be disagreeing somewhat, ( or just picking at nits the wine frees up...) <o:p></o:p><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>   The 1890-1942  vintage Steinways seem to have been held to a closer tolerance with the scale stick.  The action alignment from the key to the string is, in my experience, much more consistent on these pianos.  It is possible to have all 88 hammershanks laying near the center of the whippens while traveling straight to the string.  And all the capstan pads are centered over the capstans, to boot!  Does an action like this play better or last longer?  I don't know, but it that kind of precision is not a liability. <o:p></o:p></div><div>       The foundation ratios, (the relationship of the capstan, balance rail pin, and whippen rail) are also more closely found near the 5.6-6.2 range, with few, that I have seen, falling in the extremes.  Contrast this to the 1960-1990 vintages where we find a surreal range of everything.  How modern machinery can produce less consistent results is beyond me, but they have found a way. <o:p></o:p></div><div>      I don't have hard, fast data, but it seems that about one out of every seven Steinways older than 50 years has a good board. I own several, and have seen others.  On these pianos, a close examination of the bridge notching reveals craftsmanship at the highest level. Not so much on the new pianos.  The older pianos have straighter agraffes, which is disappointing in the highest degree.  Few procedures on a grand piano doom it to mediocrity faster than a string plane that is impossible to mate hammers too.  I have seen a number of them, but none from the '20's.   <o:p></o:p></div><div>   I don't think many of these things cause the older pianos to feel or sound different.  They just indicate more care in construction than the modern version.  You can see this on the chamfers put on the various blocks in the action, and the evenness of the damper wire bends.  Even the saws and bits used back then were sharper, as indicated on the fuzzy edges so often seen in todays actions. <o:p></o:p></div><div>   The big deal is the sound. For some reason, fresh boards in 1920's pianos usually have more response than new boards in new pianos.  That may be the hide-glue case making a difference, or the additional care the boutique rebuilder applies.  I don't know. What I do know is that I am far more confident of success when rebuilding a 1920 action than I am trying to make sense of something put together in the late 1960's.  <o:p></o:p></div><div>    I think the vintage is a factor, but not as much as the general public seems to believe. <o:p></o:p></div><div>Regards, <o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p><div>Ed Foote RPT <a href="http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/index.html">http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/index.html</a><o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div>-----Original Message----- From: David Love <<a href="mailto:davidlovepianos@comcast.net">davidlovepianos@comcast.net</a>>   Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT<o:p></o:p><div id="AOLMsgPart_0_f5d995dd-577f-4b6f-9da0-14bc53f9d79b"><pre style='background:white'><tt>This thing about 20's Steinways I don't really get.  Even if they had better<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>belly people back then the pianos are 100 years old now.  Who cares what<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>they were like in 1920.  They certainly don't resemble that now.  Every era<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>has produced good and bad bellies and actions with and without problems.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>The attraction to that era at this point is purely a psychological one,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt> </tt><o:p></o:p></pre></div></div></div></div></body></html>