[CAUT] VOICES and other Steinway stuph

[Ron Nossaman]

>    The Nossman B at Rochester was one of the finest sounding pianos I have 
> ever heard.  It sounded remarkably like one of my older customer's 1936 B, which 
> was equipped with new factory hammers in 1949 and only lightly played since.  
> Both have great sustain and clarity. 

Thanks Ed, this is most greatly appreciated.


>      I couldn't stand that piano the first time I played it. It sounded thin 
> and stringy.  THEN, as the days went past and Ron voiced the piano,  I heard 
> the tone fill out, becoming round and full, without losing the edge.  The tone 
> became malleable and big. (more about that, later).  It was great to hear the 
> development of tone from the raw hammer to the fully voiced one.  The 
> difference is night and day and by the time the convention ended, that piano had 
> everything one could want in a piano!  

I agree absolutely. If he hadn't started with Abels, he could 
have saved a lot of elbow wear. <G> He put another day into 
voicing it down after delivery. I'd love to hear how it ended 
up. As more than one of us there can testify, showing up with 
pianos with the glue still wet isn't an ideal representation 
of potential.


> Power comes 
> from the lower frequencies, loudness comes from our perception, which is 
> enhanced by the addition of the higher partials,(which we are most senstive to). 
> This is most easily noticed out in the hall, where I have heard numerous pianos 
> sound harsh and thin, even though on stage, they seemed to be extremely 
> powerful.

Excellent observation. Low frequencies are less directional, 
and carry farther. Fishing weekends as a kid, in my sleeping 
bag toward midnight, listening to conversations of the "old" 
men around the fire carrying a very long way across the water...


>      In fact, Steinway has changed so many things over the years that it is 
> difficult to define exactly what constitutes a "real" Steinway.    There is a 
> lot of plastic in the pianos that used to be felt.  There is different 
> geometry. The hammers are different.  Were the Pratt-Read keys really "Steinway" keys? 
> The strings are certainly not the same quality as they once were.  There is a 
> long list of things that are continually changing, so changing something in 
> the rebuild isn't quite like changing the composition of a prescription drug.  
> And what are we to tell customers now that we are expected to call Boston and 
> Essex pianos "Steinway products"?  

This is the essence of what the folks who like to think there 
is a defined "Steinwayness" are apparently missing. It's a 
standard, but they're all different


>      Nowdays, they attempt to make them beautiful right out of the box, and 
> they often do.  

I find this mystifying. When the actions still need half a 
regulation, damper wires are buzzing on strings, and "tuned" 
front duplexes in the killer octave are screaming for 
attention, how far from accidental could the hammer voicing 
actually be?

Thanks Ed, good post.
Ron N