[CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

[David Love]

For the record I would not say that one creates the same panel using CC or
RC&S methods.  Differences in each style's response to changes in humidity
and issues of predictability, stability and longevity are differences and
important ones.  In terms of whether a CC board produces a different tonal
quality than an RC&S board that's a more difficult question to answer
because you have to ask against which particular CC board you are comparing
it with.  However, considering the number of original NY Steinways both new
and old that I work on and the variation in tonal response due to soundboard
differences that I hear (I think I can identify when tonal differences are
soundboard driven as opposed to hammer driven), and compare that with the
number of RC&S boards that I have now done, I would argue that my experience
suggests that the range of tonal response that you find between pianos with
original executions is far greater than any detectable differences between
the RC&S boards that I do and the original Steinway pianos that I consider
functioning with a healthy soundboard.  That's putting aside small changes
that I may make to smooth scaling transitions and enhance treble response
and the like. I'm speaking more to the general tonal impression.  Moreover,
I would definitely say that the range in tonal response between the boards
that I've done using RC&S methods is significantly narrower than the range I
hear between soundboards with original executions and that would be true
whether you are comparing a bunch of new ones against each other and/or a
mixture of newer and older ones and/or rebuilt ones using original methods.

I don't really want to get into the explanation about positive and negative
springs and such because I'm not really sure exactly what you are saying but
I have done enough RC&S boards now and heard enough disappointing original
executions to be convinced that the RC&S method is a more reliable and more
stable one.  Are there fundamental tonal differences?  For the sake of
argument I would be willing to stipulate that there are though I would be
hard pressed to identify exactly what those differences are.  Nor would I
say that they are significant enough for me to abandon the RC&S method in
favor of the CC method that tends to produce outcomes with much greater
variability than any perceived difference between the two methods.

That, at least, is my own personal experience and as I continue to engage in
these RC&S executions the evidence continues to mount in their favor.  

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Brekne
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 2:47 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?


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.