Inre my description of Steinway's rim bending being changed over the years,
Benjamin Sloane writes:
>>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? <<
The discussion was pertaining to changes Steinway has made to
their pianos, specifically. The change from hot hide animal glue to
thermoplastic glue for rim construction was one point. And to that point, I suggest
that bending maple with hot, wet glue will yield a different degree of
internal stress than using a glue with much less moisture and then curing it with
hi-frequency.
>>The two-rim process only makes a job already too difficult for so many
performers, moving the piano, even more difficult. <<
I cannot make the connection between the rim construction and
difficulty for performers. And Steinways are built with one rim, the bottom of
which is thicker. (I don't know how a soundboard would be mounted another
way).
>> 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. <<
Risk is the sort of thing that causes avoidance-based compromises.
This is not necessarily a good thing for acoustical performance. The point
was that Steinway built its reputation on a construction that is no longer in
use.
As to Mason's centripedal resonator:
>> 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.<<
And that life is determined by the viability of the soundboard, so that
seems a little circular. I have observed quite a few Mason & Hamlins from
the teens and twenties that had flat boards, and all cracked to pieces, too.
>>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?<<
The discussion was pertaining to changes Steinway has made to their
pianos, specifically. The point wasn't dealing with weight, it was
specifically made about adhesive changing the acoustical qualities.
I also said: “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? <<
Modern, fluffy, lacquered hammers on large maple moldings do not
sound like older, denser, unlacquered felt on much smaller mahogany molding.
>>Have you never heard a recording of Horowitz? Should the hammers be
bigger, or smaller, and for which model?<<
I have examined Horowitz's piano, intimately, both before and after
the "restoration". In its original form, it sounded like a tin can, (and his
later recordings didn't impress me with a tonal palette, either). He was
about as neurotic an artist that has ever walked, his genius was in
performance, but I don't know of another pianist that would have been happy with his
piano as he had it set up.
“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?<<
Or maybe it was to reduce the number of unusable castings due to
warpage and breakage. And acoustically, a thicker plate is not necessarily a
better sounding one. So perhaps it was cheaper to make them thicker, impedance
governed response be damned. I don't think they made a heavier plate
because rebuilders are not attaching blocks to stretchers.
I think it is in McFerrin's book on the piano conferences of the
1920's that plates were discussed, the general consensus was that too much iron
compromised the sound.
“Zero friction sounds like a great idea, but why does the tone improve
when repinned with firmer pinning?”
>> 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.<<
It could be the quality of the felt, the expertise of the worker
that soaks them, the length of time they were allowed to dry before the sizing
pins were replaced, or anything else. I don't know, nor do I care. The
Steinway parts I have used in the past were the most inconsistant I have found,
so I don't use them.
>> In general, the new Steinway has a reputation for loose action
centers.<snip> Loose action centers with “Zero friction” are a necessary evil for
Steinway.<<
Necessary if they are to meet a price point,yes. However, there are
other brands that seem to have gotten around this.
“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? <<
I am talking about how well the whippens align with knuckles, how well
shanks align with rest cushions, how well keys align with underlevers, how
well capstans align with whippens. How well hammers align with the
strings,(there is that traveling thing, again). How well the stack was aligned with
the key geometry, etc.
>>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.<<
The pre war pianos' hammers were more often in the right place, I
think more care was taken in the forefinishing department. You are the first
non-factory employee I have heard say that the new ones are built with more
care than the earlier ones.
"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. The stringing was so full of false beats that I
have been replacing wire, ( 20 treble strings between G5 and C8). 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. <<
Um, this was a concert instrument at a major university, we didn't
spend $13,500 so that we could sell it to someone else. The only nonsense
here is the logic being used to excuse poor craftsmanship. And excusing the
"standard piano of the world" by saying everyone lays an egg once in a while
beggars my imagination.
>>False beating dissipates the farther you get from the piano. How much
aural tuning do you do? <<
Every unision I have ever tuned, (32 years X 600 pianos each X 78
unisons X 2 strings = almost 3 million times). I think I am familiar with
false beats.
>>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.<<
I can only think that you are confused.
Ed Foote RPT
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
<BR><BR><BR>**************<BR>A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See
yours in just 2 easy steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621490x1201450102/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx
%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)</HTML>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC