[CAUT] Tone "contrast"; Was - The "new" S&S Hammers.

[ricb at pianostemmer.no]

Hi

David may have been responding to my post, but Jims counter is more
then appropriate.  I indeed said nothing about anyones goals, nor
inferred anything in particular about anyone in particular.  I did
indeed make a comment in general about anyone who goes so far as to
declare their own perceptions of how pianos should sound as superior
to any who dissagree... and I most certainly stand by that comment.

I think its fair to say that the divergence in Davids own voicing
tastes from those on the far side of the bright vs dark fence is
quite large.  Indeed I know of at least one very respected S.F. tech
who characterises Davids voicings as mush. I personally find such
characterizations distasteful and said so at the time.  However...
the exchange, like so much else written on this subject just goes to
show that many of the responses to the initial post are quite
correct... tastes vary and quite a bit at that.  I agree with David
on at least the point of the non-usage of lacquer to achieve a fine
voice, and for similiar reasons.  Tho I will be the first to admit
that there are many that I respect deeply who take a completely
different take on that point.  They achieve the voice they want with
loads of lacquer, and it has nothing directly to do with string
scales, soundboard thicknesses and all the rest of it.  They will
achieve a similar voice on each and every piano they voice regardless
of make. To be sure the instruments scale and soundboard will colour
this voice... but the general characteristics of the hammers to
string voicing relationship will be the same and one can hear clearly
that persons style from instrument to instrument.

btw.. I just read Davids article a few days ago... I have to admit I
found it interesting that he ndeed started by making what struck me
as a very noble declaration as to the virtues of the very wide and
varied field for preferences in piano sound there exists in the
world.  I was just as startled upon further reading to read what
apparently were very exacting definitions for the parameters of what
exceptable sound and piano performance was. Something seemingly 
echoed below.  There is  agreement in a response to Jim and David I.
that piano sound concepts vary widely... yet below there are 
qualifiers that go beyond what I am able to see is inclusive of that
existing and actual wide range. Indeed, it is stated outright that

    "Avoidance of gross distortions, caused by overdriving
soundboards may be a goal, but it doesn't preclude a solid fortissimo"

No clear definition of what <<gross distortions caused by overdriving
soundboards>> consists of is given mind you... but based on many many
statements by David about issues like front and rear duplexes and the
like I think it is fair to say that what the authors perception of
"gross distortions" are clearly can be percieved by many others as
part of an overall beautiful sound.

None of this is a criticism towards anyone.... simply a statement of
fact that underlines the claims made by others here on this thread
that good piano sound is a very very wide concept indeed... and so it
should be.

Cheers
RicB




    I'm not sure which rebuilders you are talking about but I can
guess.  I
    think your statement mischaracterizes their goals.  I neither
think they are
    looking for a "super ppp" level (a natural pianissimo will do)
nor are they
    equating "some kind of brilliance with noise".  Avoidance of gross
    distortions, caused by overdriving soundboards may be a goal, but
it doesn't
    preclude a solid fortissimo.  Emphasis on sustain may require
some slight
    sacrifice in loudness--at least from the board.  Yet, on many of
these
    boards a wide range of tone can be achieved much more easily since
    soundboard and string scale matching delivers a somewhat more
predictable
    result and allows for brilliance, fortissimo (and pianissimo)
with a hammer
    that is neither filled with lacquer nor quarried from granite.
Neither are
    they out declaring their ideas as superior.  It is simply a
choice that they
    are making and they are being generous enough to share their
ideas.  I don't
    know about "clear market preferences".  My experience with my
customers
    (many of whom are very fine concert musicians) is that most
pianos are too
    loud, too percussive, too strident, without expressive
characteristics on
    the lower end.  Concert preparation is a very different thing
than what most
    people would choose to play on everyday.  Also, carrying a 3000
seat hall
    forces you to make choices that you would not under normal playing
    conditions. 

    Choices about voicing a piano for presentation at conventions are
more
    complicated and often must anticipate dead presentation rooms,
ambient noise
    levels and other problems.  Within any design pianos can be
voiced to very
    low or very high levels.  Those choices may not reflect the
potential in any
    given instrument.   

    David Love
    davidlovepianos at comcast.net
    www.davidlovepianos.com

    -


        There seems to be a growing desire amoungst several
rebuilders in the
        states to opt for a very moody and softish sound base. The
idea that a
        super ppp level should be needed goes to the expense of any
real
        brilliance, seemingly because these same equate that kind of
brilliance
        with noise.  It matters not that the vast majority of
pianists seem to
        on the other hand opt for that kind of brilliant sound base. 
On the one
        hand, I applaud the willingness to explore different colour
pallets, yet
        on the other hand I am skeptical to the apparent insistance
of some to
        declare their own ideas as superior others, writing off clear
market
        preferences as meaningless in a variety of ways.


        Cheers
        RicB