It has merit because it is important to understand the reasons for the variability. I don't think that they are "hand built" offers a viable explanation. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Keith Roberts Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 6:11 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? The point is, there is such variety, does this discussion have merit? Basically no one has a clear idea of what Steinway really is because there is such a variety. So to say we should or shouldn't do this or that, is absurd. I agree, to build the best piano we know how would be the only logical answer. Keith On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> wrote: Forgive me but I'm not clear as to the point. I would say that rebuilders vary quite a lot and the variety of outcomes is due to much more than the tweaking of action ratios or hammer selection. I have read Franz Mohr's book (most of it anyway) but I think it should be viewed in light of his sentiment. He is and has reasons to be very beholden to Steinway. Given their history together I don't blame him. And yes, there are certainly differences in outcomes with pianos of the same make and model even when they are using the same design. The question is why and to what degree the standard deviation needs to be as wide as it is. There are two aspects, design and execution. Part of my point was that even putting design aside, there is far too much variability coming out of Steinway in terms of execution, at least from what I've seen from the rebuilding department. A more careful rebuilding job with greater attention to detail can narrow the range of variability to the degree that the designs allow. I don't see that coming from the factory often enough. The design issue itself is another question but my point there was that many rebuilders who are tweaking the scaling (which btw almost every independent bass string maker does including GC, Arledge, JD Grandt, Sanderson, Issac, to name a few), or embracing alternate ways of forming crown are not necessarily rejecting the Steinway tonal concept of low tension scale, heavy plate and rim, lightweight soundboard assembly, lightweight and soft hammer. Rather, many are just looking for a more reliable and consistent way to achieve those ends given the things we have to work with. I don't know if that addresses your point or not but that was mine. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com <http://www.davidlovepianos.com/> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090417/b24a3cfe/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC