Rescaling

[Farrell]

Nice points Ron. One point to expand on regarding your excellent point of
modifying a design to produce more predictable results. A piano manufacturer
can afford to have variations in output quality among a certain model piano.
When the customer shops, they can play several of the same model and pick
one. Only a minority of shoppers will have much of a preference based on the
piano's performance (few of them even realize there CAN be a difference
between pianos of the same model). But when I have someone's good quality
piano in my shop I CANNOT afford to have anything less than predictable
results. My customer does not have the opportunity to play four of his/her
pianos that I have rebuilt for them and pick one. They send me one, I
rebuild that one, and that is what they are stuck with. It has to be good.

Also, consider a redesigned soundboard. I don't know that Del or anyone else
says that the soundboard they design and manufacture sounds better than the
soundboard in that "really great sounding Model B". But if a design change
can be made so that every (or at least most) soundboard sounds "really
great" and so that it sounds "really great" for 30 years rather than only
its first 10 years of life, we as rebuilders need to offer that level of
services.

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Rescaling


> >Part of the point of my original point was (or was supposed to be) that
if
> >there is a recipe for a potentially great and unique piano I question
> >whether or not we should change the recipe.  The fact that the recipe
also
> >turns out mediocre pianos doesn't necessarily indicate that the recipe is
> >flawed, but that the execution of the recipe is somehow flawed.
>
> Hi Phil,
> It's that "Somehow" flawed execution that is at the core of the
> philosophical differences here. I, like probably everyone else, used to
try
> to adhere as closely as I could to the original designs of the pianos I
> worked on. I found too often that I was disappointed in the results, and
> that the musicality of my efforts was as undependable as those of the
> efforts of the current manufacturers of new pianos of the same name. Some
> sounded very nice, and some not so nice, with no obvious reasons for the
> differences. Somehow, I didn't consider reproducing the somewhat random
> results achieved by the current manufacturer to be the level of success I
> was looking for. After Del kicked us in the slats and got some of us
> thinking about reconsidering our automatic acceptance of the basic design
> details, a lot of these deep dark mysteries of why one piano sounds good
> and another doesn't, started making a whole lot of sense. The problems
> start on the drawing board at least as often as they do on the assembly
> floor. When the physics and the math available to us now can show us that
> some design aspect requires physical performance of a material at the
> extreme limit of it's capability, and we can both see the physical, and
> hear the tonal result of this design practice, how can we in good
> conscience not try to improve the dependability and longevity of the
> results by changing the design? When a certain duplex configuration is a
> continual problem to a large percentage of the technical community, why
> shouldn't we fix it when we get the chance? I honestly don't understand
the
> reluctance to eliminate problems characteristic to a specific design
> "feature" by simply refining the design with our new tools and
> understanding. Are we to leave the cause alone and pursue a better finesse
> against the effect? Isn't that precisely what has been done ineffectually
> for too many years already? Terrific sounding pianos can still be produced
> with rewhatevering, but with fewer disappointments, to a higher average
> musical standard, and without the characteristic problems inherent in the
> revered and fiercely defended designs that inevitably produce a much wider
> spectrum of tonal result - from wonderful to awful. What it takes is not
> being willing to accept the causes as something we're stuck with because
of
> the original design intent. If that's what your mention of this design
> convergence resulting in all the pianos sounding alike was referring to,
> then I'm all for it. When all the piano designs and
> manufacturing/remanufacturing processes have all the pianos sounding
> terrific (not all the same, but generally much better), then the
> redesigners can try to kick it up another notch. I'm all for that too.
>
>
> > I think we
> >should concentrate on understanding what about the execution of the
recipe
> >results in some mediocre pianos and concentrate on fixing that rather
than
> >changing the recipe.
>
> >If Steinway B number 1 sounds great and Steinway B number 2 sounds so-so
why
> >do we think that it's necessary to change the scale, change the bridge
> >design, change the soundboard design, etc. in order to get piano number 2
to
> >sound good.
>
> When we try to understand what about the design makes the result so very
> difficult to predict, and adjust the recipe away from the edge of material
> limitations and unwanted interactions, we can make execution of the recipe
> much more dependable, reproducible, and eliminate most of the Voodoo and
> mystery. There are very definite and basic cause and effect relationships
> that don't have much to do with a lot of what us rebuilders fuss over.
>
>
> >Piano number 1 sounds great with the original design.  I would
> >take this to mean that the design is not the problem, it's the execution
of
> >the design.
>
> That's fine when pianos 2 through 17000000 sound great too, except for
> 237146, when the glue machine ran dry and nobody noticed. It's probably a
> pretty good design. How about when one out of three, or ten, or twenty
> sounds pretty lousy, with all sorts of levels in between? The factory
folks
> aren't deviating much from their routines from piano to piano. They can't
> and still survive, so what is it that's so touchy about building certain
> pianos that consecutive instruments off the manufacturer's line (much less
> the rebuilder's shop) have such widely different characteristics? It's
> because the designs require too much of the materials and assembly
processes.
>
>
>
> >If we as rebuilders can figure out the execution part and get
> >that right then the piano should sound great after being rebuilt, which
was
> >the point of rebuilding it in the first place.  We then have respected
the
> >maker's intent and provided an invaluable service to the owner of the
piano.
> > In the process what we've learned and try to share should also be
> >invaluable to makers of new pianos if they choose to listen.
> >
> >Phil Ford
>
> All things considered that I'm aware need consideration, I'll have to
> presume the maker's intent was to make money first, then music. The maker
> has already made his money, so I think it is my responsibility to restore,
> and improve where I am able, the instrument's capacity for making music,
> not the instrument. Didn't you ever add on a room addition, modify a tool,
> or edit someone else's copy? The design is good only so far as it
> dependably does the job. The result is still the important part, and I'll
> modefile for as long as I can if it improves the product.
>
>
> Ron N