I want to interject something here since Ben Sloane works for me here at CCM and tends to be rather verbose on topics he may or may not completely understand. I also wish the list to understand that Ben's opinions are Ben's alone and do not necessarily represent those of either myself or this institution. I simply don't have the time to try to keep up with all these discussions. The piano he is discussing here (1984 Steinway D) which is now in a jazz/orchestral rehearsal room was, until our recent piano purchases, our #1 instrument in our large concert hall and was used mainly for orchestral concertos and the like. It wasn't our best piano historically but it is pretty nice. When I started here in 1998 it was badly in need of action work and at that time I installed Renner parts and Abel concert-weight hammers since at that time it was difficult to get reliable parts and hammers from Steinway. 2 years ago I had grown completely sick of the way this piano sounded with hard-pressed hammers so I installed new NY Steinway hammers and did a complete Stanwood Precision Touch Design on the action which included a magnet assist function. I did this so the rather high-ratio action could handle concert weight hammers. At the time of the action rebuild, I'm sure the hammerflanges were re-pinned to 3-5 grams friction as measured by a Correx gauge. I know Steinway was offering the option of Renner actions in the 80s because we have a NY B here which is fitted with such an action but this 1984 D Ben has referred to is not one of them. It is a nice piano and we will see how it stacks up with the others this weekend when we have 6 of our Steinway Ds onstage for our annual "Pianopalooza" event. The 6 pianos will include 2 of our new Ds (one NY and one Hamburg) which are both kick-ass pianos, the aforementioned 1984 D, a 1999 D (Stanwoodized), a 1972 D rebuilt in 2003 (Stanwoodized with an all-new action, back-action and keyboard), and our 1929 D which was rebuilt in 1998 with a Wapin bridge on which I did a precision touch design on the action in 2001. The grand finale of the concert will be a 6 piano, 18 hands rendition of the Stars and Stripes march...I'm sure that will be the finest moment of music in all history! We are hosting a "piano tasting" event here Monday night for students, faculty and the Cincinnati PTG Chapter to sample and compare these pianos since it is extremely rare to have this many nice concert instruments all on one stage together. It should be very interesting and fun. Eric Eric Wolfley, RPT Director of Piano Services College-Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba) Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:02 AM To: 'caut at ptg.org' Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? I should also probably add about the Steinway D 487831 80's era that I like so much in the band room, though I find it interesting that no one else added this, in addition to what Love identified as possibly being the full diaphragmatic sound of the piano, was that at this time, Steinway installed full Renner actions, some of them with one piece ivories that could be mistaken as plastic, because there is no crease. The Renner action centers, at least on the hammer shank action centers, if not all of them, at that time, used glue on one side, and a paste graphite lubricant on the other, nothing like the synthetic lubricants being used today. They also installed, or started with a 21 (.052) size center pin that contrary to zero friction, weighed out at 1-2 grams, that while significantly reducing friction, didn't wobble; we could start at a lower size pin. There is one at Oberlin, it was 50, the one here at Cincinnati, 84. Though we could start larger than this, larger pins in action centers that we reduce friction much as possible in tend to reduce the kind of things we associate with action centers that are too loose with smaller pins. Steinway cannot be held entirely responsible for all their successes either. -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:03 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? Well that would be nice but you can only bring up the treble to the degree that the board allows you to bring it up. A very bright percussive and distorted splat won't necessarily be a good match for a huge gnarly bass. I think, on the contrary, that what you can reasonably get out of the treble dictates to some degree how you must voice the rest of the piano. If the treble is a disaster then you choose your poison. My view is that the introduction of the full diaphragmatic soundboard created a much more flexible assembly and in the process (and combined with a heavier hammer) boosted the whump at attack creating a sense of greater power. It also created more distortion in the middle and shorter sustain in the treble. Sadly, it may have also shortened the effective life of the soundboard. While I can't really attest to the motivations it seems that it was driven by a lust for power but there was a trade off and the older minimally thinned (bass and treble shelf only) boards perform better, in my view, with a more balanced tone and better control in a broader dynamic range. It's interesting when you have the opportunity, as I have recently, of comparing side by side a pre diaphragmatic soundboard (a healthy one) next to a fully diaphragmatic one. The new one is clearly louder, bigger whump, but the quality of tone is diminished (at least in my view): more distortion, poorer sustain, lack of control in the lower dynamic range. Pianos are more than just a big bass. Bass sections in the literature are mostly supportive. It's not rock and roll, after all. With the piano literature we don't wait anxiously for the bass solo (if we ever did:-)). This is not necessarily to fault Steinway for making this change. I assume they had their reasons. But you don't get something for nothing and I think the trade off wasn't necessarily all positive. Perhaps in the short term for a louder whumpier big bang concert instrument. But even then, I've seen many of those pianos begin to fail after a relatively short time. With the smaller instruments that don't need that bigger whump I think it was a poor trade. Of course, that's my esthetic opinion. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba) Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:53 AM To: 'caut at ptg.org' Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? Every one criticizes the CBS years. Yet one thing I find consistently when I sit in front of a CBS Steinway is a powerful bass that outpowers every Steinway I hear, from decades before and after, even 25, 30, 40 years into its life. With a bass like that, you can bring up the treble 'till your heart's content.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC