In a piano worth $100,000's is this a good practice ?

[Farrell]

My comments below are not meant to nit pick details, but rather to take a
jab or two at the Steinway "mistique".

> I just had a long walk (My wife is off to the US, she is American you
know)
> through a very quiet park, and I had deep thoughts about what a waste it
is
> indeed to sort of throw away the most expensive concert piano in the world
> and just replace it with the next one.

Why would you throw a good instrument out or replace it with the next one (a
new one I assume?) - why not just replace (and redesign) the soundboard,
etc.? If that is all that needs doing, new board, bridge caps, a few
thousand bucks and you are back in business - likely sounding better than
new - certainly cheaper than shelling out another $90,000.

And the next point - I'm don't keep up real well with concert grand prices,
but isn't Steinway on of the least expensive among decent piano
manufacturers? I believe big top end Bosendorfer, Fazioli, Bechstein, and
even Yamaha and Kawai, just to name a few, are more expensive (some quite a
bit more expensive). I think it is this "Steinway thing" that has folks
assume that because Steinway is obviously the best piano in the world (now
don't think for a minute that I would say that - this is simply what most
non-piano techs think, IMHO), it is also the most expensive.

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "antares" <antares@EURONET.NL>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: In a piano worth $100,000's is this a good practice ?


> > Hi Antares,
>
> Hi Tony,
> >
> > We were all talking about the 'killer octave' on the list a few weeks
ago
> > Steinways of course was the major piano concerned.
>
> of course yes...
>
> > All the methods of regulating, hammer realigning & changing etc came up
as
> > the method of fixing the problem. And of course changing the soundboard.
> >
> > Del is of the opinion that the soundboard looses its stiffness in
certain
> > areas and that that is the actual problem that has to be overcome.
> >
> > We talked about loading the offending section with springs as being a
> > successful solution to this problem and many concur that this is one way
to
> > go.
>
>
> Yeah, I now remember the conversation... I read it.
> >
> > Me, I am waiting to get permission to try out these experiments on a
> > Steinway D. I want to record the entire process starting with the
partial's
> > magnitude of all notes in the area before any work is done to see if I
can
> > located by some other method what I can hear, isolate the problem then
> > record the differences as springs are added etc.
>
> That is very interesting, because the problem is a real pain in the neck.
> I just had a long walk (My wife is off to the US, she is American you
know)
> through a very quiet park, and I had deep thoughts about what a waste it
is
> indeed to sort of throw away the most expensive concert piano in the world
> and just replace it with the next one. So it would be great if somebody
> tried to find a solution for this.
> >
> > The original possible cause of this problem can I believe be tied into
your
> > saying 'new is better'. The compression on the original boards
deteriorates
> > the board faster in the treble than the mid or bass section because of
the
> > shorter  width of the board in that area.
>
> Today I happened to visit the website of Ron Overs :
>
> http://www.overspianos.com.au
>
> I must say that I am rather impressed with his knowledge.
> If you're interested, go to 'Technical Stuff' and scroll down till you
come
> to
> 'Overs' APTTA 1998 convention lecture'
>
> He really tells very much about the 'killer octave' and his experiments
for
> improvements.
> I wonder what you guys think about it? (at least I am in awe...)
>
>
> >
> > As you say the bass and mid sections are good but the upper treble
sucks.
>
> Like a huge duck!  (:<(        -------->      (;>))
>
> > Seem to me that the board is over compressed to begin with and though
this
> > may give a fantastic tone to begin with, it will deteriorate very
rapidly
> > with time.  In a piano worth $100,000's is this a good practice ?
>
> It is a shame, and the fact that they are so arrogant, in general, makes
it
> even worse. But we have no choice, tradition is hard to erase.
> Why though, does Yamaha not have this problem? at least not as bad?
> And do you know of other older Concert grands that have stayed better? and
> are there more Australian piano builders besides Ron Overs?
>
> btw....What's da weather like in your place?
>
> Antares,
>
> Amsterdam, Holland
>
> 'Where music is, no harm can be'
>
>