Hello Ed,
I am sorry for the delay in addressing some of your concerns about the “Steinway or Forgery” post.
Your response:
“A few examples are cases glued up with plastic glue, cured by microwave, vs. hide glue cases that were allowed to cure for months longer before being sent to frazing...”
Let to the replication of Fred Sturm:
Take Ed Foote's
notion of how Steinway is making things more cheaply, exemplified by "plastic glue and microwaving" in the production of rims, for instance. Utter hogwash. The making of rims is probably the most archaic and inefficient part of the whole operation. A gang of six to eight guys come into the rim room with a stack of maple plies, plus the appropriate finish veneer. They run the plies individually through the jig that applies glue, with one of them brushing glue where there are any thin spots or voids. They carry the stack to the caul, and bend it around. They apply the various outer cauls, and the clamping jigs. Lots of evening out work, adjusting here and there, getting it to bend evenly around the curves. Tightening a bunch of clamping bolts by hand, finishing with an enormous torque wrench. The whole thing left to dry/cure for hours, usually over night. Maybe they sometimes do two a day per caul (if so, first thing in the morning and last thing at in the afternoon). Mostly one a day. Not a sign of microwaves anywhere. If there are any, they sure don't work very well, or they'd be able to take each rim off right away and start another.
Then you rejoined:
Gee Fred, you are pretty free with the insults. Or maybe you know more about hogs than the process I have witnessed at the factory. The last two times I saw them put a rim together, they put the "book" together,then wrapped it in a metal coverlet for the last layer. After the thing was clamped down, they hooked up the metal ends of the cover to a high frequency transformer. It was explained to us that this cured the glue in a matter of hours. Maybe great for production speed, but it was NOT the way the rims were put together for the first century of the brand.
And if you want to make the point that the physical properties of the glue are unimportant to the way a composite assembly entrains, you will have to explain why. And while you are at it, maybe you can explain why they were still using hide glue for the soundboard ribbing, (this was in 1975 ). I was told (at the factory,by the guy that was doing it) that it was because it makes a better sound transmission. Exactly what are you using for sources?
He then rescinded:
Fair enough, I was wrong (memory lapse) in some details and apologize. On the other hand, I would not characterize it as you did: "mainly, it seems, as a way to build them more cheaply." I wasn't there the first part of the 20th century, but I doubt very much it went slower and was more expensive. In any case, there are plenty of ways to offer criticism in a far more productive manner.
I couldn’t get a word in edgewise. First of all, I am humbled how much both of you pay attention at the factory. This was informative, and I was there. Kudos to the both of you, I am an ignorant fool. I feel like I missed something when I visited with a bunch of piano students. They do like to display the rim bending part of the process. From my recollection, though, it was not a whole lot different than what Mason & Hamlin does the cost of which is comparable to Steinway. The two-rim process has drawbacks. You have moved pianos, haven’t you Ed? Why do we not respond as critically to Mason & Hamlin? We have enough trouble trying to get people to play a real piano and not buy an electric because of how unwieldy a real one is. The two-rim process only makes a job already too difficult for so many performers, moving the piano, even more difficult. I suppose the clamps may stay on longer, more than once, I didn’t spend enough time at Mason & Hamlin to aver either, but slowing the curing process has drawbacks too. For instance, if using slower drying bonding materials, there is greater risk of the rim losing shape after removal of cauls. In addition, Mason & Hamlin, as I recall, at the time, were replacing the old wooden cauls for new synthetic ones. Should they be scolded for not doing things the old way? If you never did that tour, I attached a few photos taken there from the Cleveland Chapter tour back in ’05. Obviously, other things contribute to its weight, as outlined on the Mason & Hamlin website as follows:
Crown Retention System
The Crown Retention System is unique to Mason & Hamlin and lends stability to the piano. The system consists of the tension resonator (designed and patented for Mason & Hamlin by Richard W. Gertz in 1900), heavy case ribs, thick, hard rock maple rims, and eastern white spruce soundboard. As commonly observed on Mason & Hamlin pianos built in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Crown Retention System has preserved the crown of the soundboard, and the original power and tone, throughout the life of the piano.
Rims
Mason & Hamlin grand rims are built from 18-ply hard rock maple; they are the thickest rims in the industry. These thick rims coupled with the massive sand cast full-perimeter plates are the rock-solid foundation of the crown retention system.
Don't you think a lighter alternative like Steinway has obvious advantages? The price legitimates the comparison. Why rag on Steinway about this, and not observe the disadvantages of other pricey alternatives?
Then you declared:
“Hammers that bear little resemblance to vintage ones,(molding wood, density, lacquer, consistancy, size).”
This is a nebulous statement. What wood should be used? Should the hammers be more or less dense? If there is consistency, it is in the hammer density. These are the softest hammers available, we all know this. Is hardening the hammers wrong? Right? Who should do it, and when? Do we not have to attribute some success of the most famous Steinway Artists to lacquer? Have you never heard a recording of Horowitz? Should the hammers be bigger, or smaller, and for which model? Is not variety part of the Steinway way that has been so difficult for the mass produced piano companies to duplicate? Since when is every D a concerto D, or a collaborative instrument? Will not a different size/weight of hammer and amount of lacquer facilitate our efforts in one direction or another?
Then you inquire,
“Why are the plates thicker?”
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that so many rebuilders refuse to fasten the new pin-block to the stretcher bar? Have you visited the foundry in Springfield also? It is not too far from Cincinnati; that is an interesting tour also. They could answer better then I. Perhaps now that Steinway owns it, they decided to improve plate construction by making the plate thicker, without having to deal with a company trying to save money by using less material?
Then the assertion,
“Zero friction sounds like a great idea, but why does the tone improve when repinned with firmer pinning?”
Here is where you give Steinway too much credit. Before I posted “Steinway or Forgery,” I re-pinned the hammershank flanges on one of two new American Steinway D’s. Notwithstanding your penchant for hyperbole, at least Zero friction would be consistent. It was all over the place. At least half a dozen barely swung three times, another few dozen, thirty times. The observation of Sturm, that “I think the factory guys need to learn to travel shanks better, and hang hammers more squarely,” probably led to excessive need for burning, and therefore, the flanges got screwed up. I don’t understand how else it could have been so awful.
In general, the new Steinway has a reputation for loose action centers. I think this is the smartest approach someone selling 50-75 thousand dollar instruments regularly to people who know nothing about pianos could take when regulating action centers. It is an experienced decision by Steinway. The Steinway dealer in Cleveland sold a Samick to a guy who moved here to Cincinnati shortly thereafter with action centers that froze on him. It only cost him about 10 thousand. He was in tears when I got to his house. I had to re-pin the whole thing including damper-rack, and charge the Steinway dealer a tidy sum, who immediately paid it. I almost felt guilty. Very good sports about it. If it cost the guy the Steinway prices, he promptly would have sued them, I am sure. Loose action centers with “Zero friction” are a necessary evil for Steinway.
What about verdigris? That was pre WW2. Got you some action jobs, didn’t it? Not complaining about that. There is trial and error in every phase of Steinway even before WW2. You still using the old shank length specs?
You then inveigh: “The alignment of older pianos I have owned and also examined,(hundreds,by now) is head an shoulders above current production.”
This is more vagaries. Alignment can be attributed to so many things. What specifically are you talking about? What about returning to the model A? Is that not an effort to adhere to an earlier production model? At Oberlin, we would never hang a set of hammers without setting dry samples. It had little to do with modified specs on shank distance, and at least half these were pre-WW2. We hardly knew what would happen otherwise. It was entirely unpredictable; we never used the old hammers for a spec, and usually found a more precise solution. Granted, it wasn’t the first time around for some. When you do an action job on a pre-WW2 Steinway, are you using the old hammers as a speck for shank distance, seeing these had no alignment problems? I can answer in just the same vague way: The alignment on the new Steinways is better than on the old Steinways.
And finally:
Case in point, Vanderbilt had a new soundboard installed in one of our D's at the factory. When it came back, I found that all the bridge notches were cut behind the pins. Hit the key hard enough and you can hear it distort. This isn't what was done 70 years ago. The stringing was so full of false beats that I have been replacing wire, ( 20 treble strings between G5 and C8). The new wire cured all these problems, so I suspect the chipper is being careless. And why do I have three pins in the low bass with less than 70 in/lbs of torque? Why are there tuning pins leaning like the tower of Pisa scattered among the pin field? I never saw this level of carelessness in the pre war pianos.
This is the same kind of nonsense that I was talking about. Why do rebuilders scream bloody murder when somebody screws up a rebuild? Everyone lays eggs once and a while, or is in denial. You sell it to someone who wants furniture, and can’t play. It’s an unwritten rule. Yes, I suppose Steinway needed to be more careful with this one. If rebuilders around here charged enough, it wouldn’t look worse when Steinway fouls up one. False beating dissipates the farther you get from the piano. How much aural tuning do you do? I will admit in my development as an aural tuner that false beating could be attributed to other things; what I once thought was false beating, was something else, and only by tuning intervals on a regular basis did I discover this. The problem is other types of pianos don’t have enough sustain g5-c8 for what we may dub false beating to even begin, the price we pay for non-sustaining instrument that actually rings for a while before the sound ends.
Steinways are born, not made. We are part of a maturation process. It is easy to get angry with a child when he or she fails to get things right immediately, or has to be told more than once what to do. We cannot know what a child will grow up to be, and a child may defy our expectations. We may not be in complete control for the process of development while raising a child, and the child may go in directions we disapprove of, but usually the child will end up finding his or her own way. This is the way it is with Steinways.
Not being in control all the time discomforts us, but with a Steinway, that is the way it has to be. Each one has its own character and personality, and we abuse lacquer when we use it to change that. I am definitely getting better at not trying to make a Steinway be something it is not. And a new one is just not mature yet. It is frustrating, because we want it to be an adult immediately, but eventually with good rearing it turns into something better than we expected it to be.
________________________________
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of A440A at aol.com [A440A at aol.com]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 8:50 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?
sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu writes: (umm, most of us sign our posts)
I must unequivocally reject the idea that the Steinway factory is not producing Steinways, from the hammer to the belly to the action to the action ratio to the etc. The notion that we suggest this in light of what rebuilders are doing to Steinways today, is preposterous.
For the, “Is it a Steinway?” query, the ball must be put squarely in the court, of the rebuilders, not the Steinway factory. Kick me out if you want, but I want to reassure all of you as someone, again, with experience at the first and the last Steinway school in the world. The Steinway factory, believe it or not, is still making Steinways, and they are as Steinway as Steinway can get.
Yes, they are making Steinways, but they are not the same as piano that was being made before WW II. There are profound changes that have found their way into the piano, mainly, it seems, as a way to build them more cheaply.
A few examples are cases glued up with plastic glue, cured by microwave, vs. hide glue cases that were allowed to cure for months longer before being sent to frazing. Hammers that bear little resemblance to vintage ones,(molding wood, density, lacquer, consistancy, size). Knuckle material that is nothing like the soft leather of yore, etc. Why are the plates thicker? Zero friction sounds like a great idea, but why does the tone improve when repinned with firmer pinning?
This doesn't address the lack of care in assembly,either. The alignment of older pianos I have owned and also examined,(hundreds,by now) is head an shoulders above current production. The care with which they were originally built is no longer evident. Case in point, Vanderbilt had a new soundboard installed in one of our D's at the factory. When it came back, I found that all the bridge notches were cut behind the pins. Hit the key hard enough and you can hear it distort. This isn't what was done 70 years ago. The stringing was so full of false beats that I have been replacing wire, ( 20 treble strings between G5 and C8). The new wire cured all these problems, so I suspect the chipper is being careless. And why do I have three pins in the low bass with less than 70 in/lbs of torque? Why are there tuning pins leaning like the tower of Pisa scattered among the pin field? I never saw this level of carelessness in the pre war pianos.
The name is the same, the quality is something else.
regards,
Ed Foote RPT
**************
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the web. Get the Radio Toolbar! (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090420/d1633257/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rim 1.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 129654 bytes
Desc: rim 1.bmp
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090420/d1633257/attachment-0004.bmp>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rim2.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 99846 bytes
Desc: rim2.bmp
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090420/d1633257/attachment-0005.bmp>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rim3.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 137754 bytes
Desc: rim3.bmp
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090420/d1633257/attachment-0006.bmp>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rim4.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 141966 bytes
Desc: rim4.bmp
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090420/d1633257/attachment-0007.bmp>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC