<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> Hello John,      I agree with you completely.  Many older pianos, as I have indicated here before, have, at least to my ear and that of many others, a more musical, expressive sound.  Nor do they particularly lack sustain, although this certainly can occur.  Where they do there are, in the large majority of cases, conditions that can be corrected with some work.  As to sound, there is little doubt of this amongst musicians, in general and, especially, among piano players, who have to make the instrument do what it is designed for, that is, produce music.       On this subject there is, however, substantial skepticism, among technicians, especially here, who don't play, or, only play in a very limited way.  These individuals obviously don't judge sound by the methods, whatever they are, of musicians, nor do they reach similar conclusions.  So, I would stick with what, actually, sounds good.  Nor, are their analyses, whatever they say, particularly scientifically-based, whatever the illusion given.    The so-called analyses presented here are, in my mind, elaborate rationalizations for the joys of woodworking and, although superficially scientific sounding, are gross oversimplifications for soundboard functions.   Vague pronouncements about stiffness here and there, diffuse claims regarding impedance, sneering asides as to the much derided "circle of sound", confident assertions of "compression failure" etc. are only partially correct, if at all and should be taken with a grain of salt.  So, I would stick with what sounds best and not, allow myself, as some appear to have done,  to be sold a bill of goods. Regards Robin Hufford, RPT     Bec and John wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid96DD2962-6B32-11D9-AB15-000393B899AE@comcast.net">Hi Dale, We are coming at this from 2 different perspectives! The method of crowning used for the soundboard is not an issue I'm considering, I'm just relaying my ear's perspective based on my experience. My 80 year Steinway L has 2 very thin cracks, has crown and a warmth of sound I haven't heard in new L's, and I live in the northeast which has large humidity swings - I don't even notice any significant lack of sustain in any particular section. But even if my piano had cracks galore, say like one of my friends' old Mason and Hamlin A (which incidentally sounds quite nice), what difference does that make if it has a more pleasing sound than a new one with no cracks? -- John <blockquote>   HI John   I think you've hit a VERY SIGNIFICANT cause of our objections to new the new piano shaped objects being sold at Costco or wherever.   .Yeah The Hammers. Yes, & voicing,  or a hammer transplant can seriously improve things And yet if the soundboard design & execution is lacking then the musical tone index goes down & the noise & aural pain index goes up.   My experience ,with most old Os & Ls from the 20's. is The rib support in these pianos is so lacking that 9 out of 10 boards I see in these pianos are flat as pancakes and or have as many cracks as a venetian blind.  Now remember I'm in Calif. where pianos longevity is greatly enhanced by our climate. Providing that the pianos lived here most of there lives they've suffered less.. So what does that tell you about the conditions of others that have groaned thru harsh winters & summers?    My Advice to all is stop being so optimistic about the condition of old compression crowned boards. It's a method full of pitfalls which is a self destructing method in which all crown has collapsed by now  in pianos built 85 plus years ago   Regards   Dale</blockquote> </blockquote> </body> </html>