> OH BOY... I get to get carried away again... Not by me Richard Brekne! I prefer small females...(hehehehe) > > Now boys and girls... while reading this please remember I am full of grins, > and > smiles and laughter here... and argueing a point as much for the sake of > argument as > anything else..... ok ??? I'm ready! > > antares wrote: > >> >>>> To quote André Oorebeek from Amsterdam, Holland "The first years are always >>>> the best, and that's the reason why concert D's >>>> disappear from the stage after just a number of years." >>> >>> quote from Richard Brekne : >> >>> Yes.. and wheter Andre wants to admit it or not, his is also a declaration >>> of >>> faith..escpecially in the direct reasoning he cites... "elasticity of new >>> wood". >>> There simply is nothing to firmly substantiate this claim. Certainly nothing >>> within the realms of science. It remains speculation not much better founded >>> then any other of the "theories" out there. >> >> And here I do not agree. It is a well known fact in our profession that any >> new instrument, beautiful or ugly, has at least power and a lively tone. I >> am not talking about a beautiful tone, ok? > > How is this "fact" established.....? what makes it a "fact". How does this > "fact" > then deal with the very real fact that quite a few important music people in > this > world dissagree... grin.... as they are bound to in this as in every thing > else. And > I dont see how you can possibly seperate piano tone into componets like > powerfull > and beautiful in the context of this kind of disscussion. Also.. would you > include > say...a Zimmerman as a piano that when new has power and liveliness ?? > > What is good piano sound, Andre is about as subjective as it gets... you know > that > very well indeed haveing dealt with high calibre musicians.. grin... and > presumably > other piano techs as much as you must have. I was talking about piano tone in > this > subjective sense when I responded.. so if you are going to dissagree...then we > need > to stick to the same premises at least.. eh ?? Lemme say this Richard... : I am certainly not a person with a degree in anything except a diploma for swimming, car driving and tuning pianos, (it's the opposite, I ran away from every school I was sent to, and thus I am an uneducated dumbo), so it is useless beforehand to argue with you on an academic basis. Instead I base my 'statements' on the practical world and I am not going to bicker about words. So, if you do not agree with my statement that new instruments have more power than old ones, than I ask you : what's wrong with your ears? Of course..... I know...... there is nothing wrong with your ears, but I only try to use my common sense, my experience of thirty years of tuning and listening, and handling zillions of instruments old and new. I know the difference between a new one and an old one, and you know it too. So why quarrel over words? New pianos almost always have more power than older ones, and it is because they have a fresh soundboard with a fresh crown and new strings and a new action. If you can not agree with this then I will give up, because a further discussion will be useless, so I think. And I know exactly what you mean with new (former east German) Zimmerman pianos...they were ugly ughh! I think we do not need to discus basically bad pianos. Instead, I suggest we look at good instruments, and let me name a few : Schimmel-Yamaha-Steinway-Bösendorfer-Mason & Hamlin-Feurich-Seiler-Steingraeber-Bechstein etc etc many many more. I can not imagine that there is a piano tuner/technician who denies that those pianos sound best when they are in their first years, and, I can not imagine that there is a piano tuner/technician who says that a quality piano sounds better after 60 years. > >> >> So if we skillfully replace a soundboard the sound will be more strong and >> supple than before, and If you replace the old soundboard with another old >> soundboard you will not get that result. > > If the old soundboard is in cherry condition... plenty of crown then I would > take > issue with such a sweeping absolutist declaration. And again...the outset of > this > particular tangent of this disscussion had nothing to do with pulling apart > the > concept of "good piano sound" into component parts. Further your use of the > word > "supple"... come on now ... give me any given 10 piano experts in the world > and 10 > reasonable quality pianos of varying ages and we are going to have an > interesting > time getting them to aggree on which piano has the more "supple" tone. OK... what do I mean with a supple tone? I often compare pianos with human beings: a young person, a child, is, compared with a 50 year old person, very supple and flexible, it can move fast and has much energy. This is my personal definition of a powerful and supple tone : flexible, rich in overtones, a good sustain, and with a lot of energy. Furthermore, supple is a term which possibly refers to a 'position' between over-supple and less supple or not supple at all. Now look at the suspension of a new car : it has enough strength to withstand heavy jolts and it gives enough suppleness to comfort the driver. If it is too stiff, we bounce on the road like a tennis ball. If it is too supple, we slam on the surface of the road while killing an ant. A supple tone implies a movement in between certain parameters. I can imagine that a new soundboard has more elasticity in movement than an older one and to me, in any case, it is clear that an older board is not the same as what it was before does not 'give' the same qualities anymore. > >> And, as I said, a fresh and well built copy of, for instance, a Walter >> Pianoforte sounds much and much better than an old one. I hope you agree at >> least on that one? > > Not out of hand I wont. It certainly will most likely sound different.. I dont > get > into value judgements like this. The problem is that what you and I may think > is > nice... isnt necessarilly what somebody else thinks is nice. Further we are > getting > off into un-qualified example useage... I would remind you that I simply > stated that > I believed wood can age in a positive as well as negative manner, acoustically > as > well as otherwise. And that there was a distinct prevailance of reliance on > believe > systems to "prove" things one way or the other. If we take a closer look at paper, we see that over the years it looses its firm substance, and if we do not treat it right, it will fall apart. Wood changes too when it gets older, as Erwin wrote yesterday : I quote : According to the 1955 reprint on sound board material in the May issue of the journal the author states that new woods such as soundboard spruce feed off the resin reservoir left in them, the older the wood the less resin. This is not the first time I've heard this. At some point in time a soundboard is at the point of no return or at least for sure diminishing tonal return as the cells degenerate from force, atmosphere and resin depletion. unquote. Indeed the composure changes, resin hardens, water dries up, the wood cells shrink. Again...it is like with people getting older : over the years we lose our rejuvenating abilities, we shrivel and dry up, we get un-supple, we lose our former powers and we have less energy. Maybe it is useful to tell you that In the past I have spent countless hours in the atelier of a befriended violin maker. While enjoying freshly made coffee and munching on Dutch 'gevulde koek', we discussed everything there is to discuss about his and my profession, which both have very much in common. Over the years, I gathered knowledge about pianos and violins/violas/celli old and new, and also, through my close contact with this gifted (and nowadays a very successful builder) violin guy, I understood that one of the first things we have to do at least while doing a soundboard repair, is renewing the ribs. From then on, many of my repaired pianos had new ribs, and later on, when I met my business partner Arnold Duin (a very gifted piano technician and wood person), I learned what new soundboards do to old grands. Maybe it helps a little for you to know that my bold statements are not just conjecture and phantasies. > > Take this posting of yours for example. You make a lot of declarations about > facts...but there is no reference to anything that can substantiate any of > these... > other then "its a well known"... or "in our buisness" etc... No offense meant > Andre... but thats the same kinda thing as Steinways "circle of sound" > thingy... So indeed, when I say "it is a well known fact that...." I refer to common piano technicians' experience and knowledge, built up over years and years. With Steinway I have nothing to do. They make beautiful pianos, I tune and repair them, I went to their factory for a Month, and I have trouble with their closed circuit and haughtiness. >> I think I dare say that we >can not< deny that a new, well regulated and >> voiced Steinway/Yamaha grand etc. >always< sounds better, that is : with a >> more elastic and powerful tone, and with powerful I mean not just raw >> one-dimensional power, but a power with 'layers', with more to it than just >> BANG! I am sure you guys know what I mean > > I dare say we can. And I also dare say that many do... and many dont... who's > right... and why... ?? Thats what I want to know. Than I respect your opinion, but I have mine. > >> . >> In the end I am really convinced that the wood conditions alter over the >> years : It gets un-supple, it gets tired from the unrelenting strain, it >> dries out, the wood cells change...everything changes, just like in old >> paper for instance. No wonder new wood sounds different. > > So... you are advancing the idea that there is wood fatique that detrimentally > effects the acoustic properites of wood even in the face of perfect climate > conditions (if those could be provided) ??... Ok... so where are your facts.. > where > are the studies and the data that backs this up. Of course there is wood fatique! as there is fatique in all material under pressure and/or stress. How could anyone deny this? Fibers are pressed together, torn apart during this process, they get thinner as everything gets thinner under heavy pressure and it speeds up the process of aging fast. If there are no rejuvenating factors, as with people up until a certain age, any material will lose its composure, its structure. Atoms and molecules are also living things, they circle and move, and are prone to change by external powers and the elements. In the end, every material will fall apart, shorter or later. I do not think we have to unravel these simple statements, they are understandable for everyone. Scholars will bend themselves over this for 20 years and afterwards tell you the same thing, plus, of course, more learned facts which I can not know (for as I already stated before, I am not an educated person) > > Again.. I can aggree with you on much of this or I may choose not to... but it > doesnt change the fact that our standpoints are by and large a matter of > faith. Indeed, I strongly 'believe' in what I say, but I give a reason and my 'simple' explanations. You, most probably, will deny all I said, and that's ok. But at least I tried to give you an answer. Friendly greetings from André Oorebeek Amsterdam, Holland 'where music is, no harm can be'
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC