<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> OH BOY... I get to get carried away again... Now boys and girls... while reading this please remember I am full of grins, and smiles and laughter here... and argueing a point as much for the sake of argument as anything else..... ok ??? antares wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  >> To quote André Oorebeek from Amsterdam, Holland "The first years are always >> the best, and that's the reason why concert D's >> disappear from the stage after just a number of years." > >quote from Richard Brekne : > Yes.. and wheter Andre wants to  admit it or not, his is also a declaration of > faith..escpecially in the direct reasoning he cites... "elasticity of new > wood". > There simply is nothing to firmly substantiate this claim. Certainly nothing > within the realms of science. It remains speculation not much better founded > then any other of the "theories" out there. And here I do not agree. It is a well known fact in our profession that any new instrument, beautiful or ugly, has at least power and a lively tone. I am not talking about a beautiful tone, ok?</blockquote> How is this "fact" established.....? what makes it a "fact". How does this "fact" then deal with the very real fact that quite a few important music people in this world dissagree... grin.... as they are bound to in this as in every thing else. And I dont see how you can possibly seperate piano tone into componets like powerfull and beautiful in the context of this kind of disscussion. Also.. would you include say...a Zimmerman as a piano that when new has power and liveliness ?? What is good piano sound, Andre is about as subjective as it gets... you know that very well indeed haveing dealt with high calibre musicians.. grin... and presumably other piano techs as much as you must have. I was talking about piano tone in this subjective sense when I responded.. so if you are going to dissagree...then we need to stick to the same premises at least.. eh ?? <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  So if we skillfully replace a soundboard the sound will be more strong and supple than before, and If you replace the old soundboard with another old soundboard you will not get that result.</blockquote> If the old soundboard is in cherry condition... plenty of crown then I would take issue with such a sweeping absolutist declaration. And again...the outset of this particular tangent of this disscussion had nothing to do with pulling apart the concept of "good piano sound"  into component parts. Further your use of the word "supple"... come on now ... give me any given 10 piano experts in the world and 10 reasonable quality pianos of varying ages and we are going to have an interesting time getting them to aggree on which piano has the more "supple" tone. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>And, as I said, a fresh and well built copy of, for instance, a Walter Pianoforte sounds much and much better than an old one. I hope you agree at least on that one?</blockquote> Not out of hand I wont. It certainly will most likely sound different.. I dont get into value judgements like this. The problem is that what you and I may think is nice... isnt necessarilly what somebody else thinks is nice. Further we are getting off into un-qualified example useage... I would remind you that I simply stated that I believed wood can age in a positive as well as negative manner, acoustically as well as otherwise. And that there was a distinct prevailance of reliance on believe systems to "prove" things one way or the other. Take this posting of yours for example. You make a lot of declarations about facts...but there is no reference to anything that can substantiate any of these... other then "its a well known"... or "in our buisness" etc... No offense meant Andre... but thats the same kinda thing as Steinways "circle of sound" thingy...   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  So...this knowledge, based on listening experience and combined with the results of newly built copies of old violins and pianofortes gives me the certainty that, at least, one of the reasons for decay in souplesse  lies in the changed conditions of the wood.</blockquote> Why... when no one has ever actually isolated the wood itself from all the other things we fix.  Ok.. I am being a bit over argumentative... but its to make a point. You just cant write off what all kinds of people think buy simply labeling them as being fooled by some myth when you actually have nothing but myths yourself to "prove" your own standpoint. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  I think I dare say that we >can not< deny that a new, well regulated and voiced Steinway/Yamaha grand etc. >always< sounds better, that is : with a more elastic and powerful tone, and with powerful I mean not just raw one-dimensional power, but a power with 'layers', with more to it than just BANG! I am sure you guys know what I mean</blockquote> I dare say we can. And I also dare say that many do... and many dont... who's right... and why... ?? Thats what I want to know. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>. In the end I am really convinced that the wood conditions alter over the years : It gets un-supple, it gets tired from the unrelenting strain, it dries out, the wood cells change...everything changes, just like in old paper for instance. No wonder new wood sounds different.</blockquote> So... you are advancing the idea that there is wood fatique that detrimentally effects the acoustic properites of wood even in the face of perfect climate conditions (if those could be provided) ??... Ok... so where are your facts.. where are the studies and the data that backs this up. Again.. I can aggree with you on much of this or I may choose not to... but it doesnt change the fact that our standpoints are by and large a matter of faith. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Friendly greetings from André Oorebeek Amsterdam, Holland 'where music is, no harm can be'</blockquote> The beat goes on... grin. Ok... I have had my fun now... tear me apart....hehe. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A>  </html>