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

[David Ilvedson]

Well, Ric, you have the advantage as most of us haven't been in Bergen to find out what "well-respected" local technicians think of your work...you can be sure the same type of comments have been made about your voicing.   It really is a waste of time to bring up an "alleged" comment.   The "well-respected" technician is certainly a competitor and his work is superior of course.   

Really with the Stanwood comment and this last one, I'm thinking you ought to consider sticking with Pianotek...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
To: caut at ptg.org
Received: 9/18/2007 1:27:11 PM
Subject: [CAUT]  Tone "contrast"; Was - The "new" S&S Hammers.


>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