<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>And then, of course, there are those ridiculous Steinway uprights and their flagpoling tuning pins.  It’s what you get when you have a very tight tuning pin coming through a 3/8” thick Kelly plate webbing without plate bushings to give some support to the pin.  I regularly tune a 5 year old K 52 that easily the most difficult tuning piano in my client base.  I know that I am not the only tech who suffers this, I have been hearing this from other techs for 35 years.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Did I mention the astounding amount of false beats in the top third of this piano?  It would do a 60 year old Lester spinet proud, as would the astonishingly garbagey overtones in the bass monochords – I never knew a Steinway upright bass could sound that shitty.  (It can sound quite good, actually!!)<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Ok, my language is a bit colorful.  But I am identifying real problems that exist in these pianos, as are others.  They are the same problems that exist in other pianos and should simply be seen and judged as such by the same standards.  There is nothing that excludes Steinway from the standards of workmanship that we would apply to any other piano.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Steinway would have us believe that they know something we don’t.  That may be true for some of us, but it is certainly not true for all of us.  The problems can viewed to the same objective standards by all, and that includes Steinway, their pretensions to being the Godhead to the contrary.  That is what makes their propaganda about rebuilders so galling.  Not only is much of what they have us believe about pianos rebuilt by others than Steinway not broadly applicable, they often don’t meet their own standards as they try to lord over us and bully us out of the picture.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Steinway still makes some wonderful pianos, and they still make some not so wonderful pianos.  Each can be judged at what it does well and what it does not do well.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Finally, it always remains true that you cannot bullshit many of the really good musicians.  That is what allows our best rebuilders like Dale and a number of others to stay busy, even as they swim upstream against the BS.    There is a reason why Steinway felt the need to print this sheet, because there are a number of rebuilt Steinways that do a pretty good job of chewing at Steinway’s heels.  They win the buyer because they sound and play better than many new pianos that come from the factory.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will Truitt<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:54 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Blocks<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><pre><tt>Maybe if the tech is employed by the brand, and has tasted deeply<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre><tt>of the Kool-Aid, the  sense of torque could be distorted by allegiance,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre><tt>but I am not seeing these blocks as impressive in practice. Too much<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre><tt>inconsistency after a few years to lay any claim to greatness.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre><tt>Regards,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre><tt>Ed Foote RPT<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre> <tt><o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre><tt>Ed</tt><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><tt> I find the same to be true. Jumpy popping pins. Variable torque. I think the problem stems from  drilling </tt><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><tt>& then  stringing </tt>protocols which contributes to this. Perhaps Rons double drilling method would help solve     this. <o:p></o:p></pre><div>Dale Erwin R.P.T. Erwin's Piano Restoration Inc. Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S. pianos <a href="http://www.Erwinspiano.com">www.Erwinspiano.com</a> Phone: 209-577-8397 <tt> </tt> <tt>  </tt><o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div>-----Original Message----- From: Ed Foote <<a href="mailto:a440a@aol.com">a440a@aol.com</a>> To: pianotech <<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 9:40 am Subject: [pianotech] Blocks<o:p></o:p><div id="AOLMsgPart_0_47a6dd70-907d-451f-b5bc-4ce0d6b9b65c"><pre style='background:white'><tt>Ok,I renamed it,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>Greetings,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>       Re the "Hexagrip Pinblock", the site says, "The tighter the grip<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>on> the tuning pins, the longer the piano stays in tune.">><o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>   If this is true, then why doesn't Steinway and Sons use something<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>like Falconwood, where 200 in/lbs is an easy to get target?<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>   And, if this is true, why do so many Steinways have lower torque in<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>the low bass than in the high treble? I have seen this repeatedly and<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>one of these is a very expensive belly job from the Steinway<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>Restoration Dept. I  really think it should be reversed. Who on earth<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>needs to wrestle 150 in/lbs in the top octave? Maybe it is a case of<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>"why use finesse when brute force will do?"  A competent tech can tune<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>a 100 in/lb block as stably as a 150.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>     Any experienced tech knows better than to give credibility to the<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>idea of Hexagrip superiority. The material is as good as any, but the<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>factory stringing so far down the line in quality compared to almost<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>any other brand I have seen it is hard to know it. Dealer techs usually<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>don't point out low torque pins, as long as the tuning holds, but if I<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>think a problem is up the road, I sure do.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>     Maybe if the tech is employed by the brand, and has tasted deeply<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>of the Kool-Aid, the  sense of torque could be distorted by allegiance,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>but I am not seeing these blocks as impressive in practice. Too much<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>inconsistency after a few years to lay any claim to greatness.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>Regards,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt>Ed Foote RPT<o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt><a href="http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html" target="_blank">http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html</a><o:p></o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre><pre style='background:white'><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre></div></div></div></body></html>