Hi Keith, others, 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 I have to disagree here. At least with the direction I believe this is going in. This bit about variance is in my mind taken well far out of perspective. Its true that the instruments vary, and in some cases quite widely with respect to touch and tone response, but the overall color of the Steinway sound is still quite identifiable. That is to say I have yet to hear any Steinway that has the sound I've come to expect from a Czceh grand, or a Sauter, or a Yamaha. These things are built far to deeply into the basics of the design, the scale, rim and SB as a parallel discussion here touches on. Nor do I find the much similarity in action response either isolated from the instrument or in combination seen as a whole. Yamaha uses for example 57-59 grams down weight and at least 25 grams upweight as standard specs to use just one very obvious example. As to adhering to the basic philosophy of matching low tension scales to light SB designs that David Love touches on. I have to admit this is an interesting tangent to the <<authenticity>> question. But it relies on the assumption that one can create the same overall panel using both purely CC methods and RC&S methods, the only difference being in the realm of reliability and durability. I don't see this has been established and through all the discussions through the years can not see a coherent logic that holds up in the argumentation along this line. The CC board creates vary different stresses on the panel then the RC&S board, and these differences are exasperated by each boards response to climate changes. You have a positive spring with regard to the ribs on the one hand that by and large only gets increased until panel compression fails, (another point whose importance in the reliability question I see as overstated) and a spring that goes negative the minute panel compression increases. This is often stated another way... to paraphrase... "CC boards rely on compression for their crown and the ribs resist this crowning". If it can indeed be shown clearly that none of this makes any difference to anything except how the board holds up and how predictable the results are... then I'll be delighted to agree further with Davids reasoning. He makes a very good point in respect to this authenticity question. I'll be the first to raise my moral finger in the air when significant design changes are imparted. It is my view these need to be made clear on an instrument in the form of some marking by the rebuilder. And I think the rebuilder should be the first to want to take credit for his/her modifications as well. But if a rebuilder uses for all practical purposes the exact same design and procedural methods that the manufacturer does... then I have no problems with an independent rebuilder doing the word visa vi Steinway or any other factory, and this is where my sympathies with such factories concerns with regards to authenticity issue stops. I agree in whole with the standpoint that a highly skilled rebuilder / designer has the potential for a higher standard of workmanship then any factory can. Tho I would not go so far as to refer to production line workers as lackeys. These guys are also very skilled... but working in a factory situation with several levels of bosses breathing down your neck to keep you on their time/cost effectiveness schedules is a very different working condition then a one or two man shop in Bumfrog Idaho. Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC