Terry,
I have had similar experiences with the Acrosonic which, I think, most people consider to be unusually good sounding for its size and style. They consider it so, not only because it is an unusually good sounding very small vertical, but, rather, an unusually good sounding piano. By this I mean, as you say, standing favorably in comparison to the standards of sound displayed by prominent makers on their very best instruments. Even though I think the timbre compares favorably this way, I do think there are some intrinisic qualities that are the negatives associated with such a small piano but I am not sure I know how to phrase them at the moment except to say that the extremely sonorous sound of the Acrosonic overwhelms any negative part of the sound associated with such a small instrument. I think the best ones come from the thirties and forties. The routine and, worthy, emphasis on power
and ringtime in discussions here on the list, should be accompanied, at least as I see it, with reference to timbre as distinct from these, of which this piano is an example, at least for my taste, and that of many others. Power and ringtime, on the one hand, and beauty of timbre are not, of course, synonymous, as most Asian pianos demonstrate.
Beauty of sound, per se, does not necessarily come from size, as the Acrosonic demonstrates. Some of the Chickering 121s can attain this kind of mellow sound, in my experience, and this model is, perhaps, the smallest grand I am aware that does so, as do numerous other Chickering models. Upright pianos with a tenor bridge also sound like this, for example, the Mason and Risch, some Chickerings, Knabe, certain Mason & Hamlins, etc..
One of the very best sounding pianos ever built, at least to my ear, similar in quality to the Acrosonic, and I note others making the same comment, is the Steinway A round tail 88 note, a piano that was copied by several manufacturers early in the 19th century, as were other Steinway models. This piano was built only from 1892 to 1897 and has a remarkable timber which is, indeed, similar in quality but much richer than the Acrosonic.
It is, however, burdened with a blatant transition problem at the transitions to the tenor and bass bridge which is frequently made worse by the use of hard, heavy hammers and other things. It sounds more like a D than do the B and C models. I would go so far to say that the best of the A's, insofar as timber is concerned, have a better sound than does the D. Obviously, certain qualifications apply: the D is louder, far, far, more consistent, and does not have the pinched sound in the very lowest bass as has the A. This piano was copied by AB Chase and others; the subsequent A, developed in 1897-1898, just after the death of William Steinway, with its half-round tail was copied by several other manufacturers. Knabe made a similar piano, although it was c. 6' 3". On this piano the tenor bridge is not connected to the long bridge as is the case with Steinway and the AB Chase knockoff. The
sound is, again, extremely rich, notable and frequently commented upon.
In general, round-tail pianos are markedly better at achieving this kind of timber, than are the square-tail versions of the same model, although, I believe it is apparent the square-tail pianos in general have more ringtime in the higher treble than do the round-tails. This can be seen in the A. The tone is, to my ear, somewhat rougher in the bass and drier and less interesting elsewhere in the squared-off version of the A as compared to that of the round-tail. A similar set of observations can be made regarding the O and L. The O is just a round-tail version of the L with a somewhat different plate.
Interestingly, when Steinway decided to drop the A from their line-up, they replaced it, their smallest piano, with three smaller instruments, the S, M, and L, which were developed, I am sure, in response to competition from the small grands of other manufacturers, of which Chickering quarter grands were, perhaps, most formidable. In any case, the introduction of the M around 1912 is said to have saved the company. Maybe these letters were chosen from the words, small, medium and large.
Subsequently the A was reintroduced into their line-up as the name for, of course, a larger, wholly different piano, the 6'4" model, indicating to me that the public was still aware of the virtues of the model A, wanted it, remembered it and the Company attempted to use this set of expectations, understandably, to their advantage. Another interesting point - It appears the round-tail sound was of sufficient import that the company returned to a round-tail version of a design, that of the O, that had a square-tail variant, which was the L. The public thus had a choice: a round-tail design and sound or the relatively new square-tail design and sound in one and the same model.
The early, but also great, musical instrument produced by M&H was the Mason & Hamlin AA - another evolutionary product of the round-tail A. Although the shape of the piano is slightly different in the curves, its width and length slightly different and the soundboard stiffened with thirteen ribs, in comparison to the twelve of the Steinway, it is extremely similar both visually and, technically, to the A. This was, obviously, intentional. In the AA, and I think the name exists to trade upon the favorable awareness of the A, the bridge layout, including the tenor bridge, are, virtually, identical to that of the Steinway. This was not inadvertent but was, rather, calculated, as can be judged from comparing the case, caseparts, and legs of the one to the other. The detail work appears to be virtually, identical. Interestingly enough, one has a piano in which can be discerned the sound
associated, on the one hand, with the sound produced by a Steinway A, and, in the other, the characteristic Mason & Hamlin sound which is associated with pianos lacking the Steinway characteristics of sound.
Regards, Robin Hufford.
Farrell wrote:
> Robin wrote:
>
> "> Baldwin Acrosonic, another piano that has, to my ear and
> > others, an expressive, musical timber in spite of being inordinately
> > small."
>
> I have a new client that has two pianos. They want to keep one and sell one (they are engaged and combining families). I went there the first time a couple weeks ago. A 1939 Baldwin Acrosonic spinet (looks like a square grand when the top is all closed - way cool case), and a 1980 Kimball console. The Acro had only about the wear state of the typical 30 year old piano. I told them that as-is, the Kimball is better because the Acro action is stuck in neutral (action centers gummed up and were real slow), but that if they were willing to sink a couple hundred bucks into it, the Baldwin would be much nicer. The Acro action was all stuck/slow and they wanted a piano that played, so we pitch-raised and tuned the Kimball. Sounded much like a Kimball when I was done. :-(
>
> They wanted to explore fixing the Acro, so I took the action to my shop and gave the flanges the alchohol/water treatment followed by Protek. Freed everything up nicely. Tightened action screws and filed hammers. Put action back in piano last Saturday. Leveled keys and did a little bit of regulating. That piano played sooooo very nicely. We compared how the two pianos sounded. The lady was ready to pitch the Kimball out the front door (I'm glad I did not mention trebuchet!). With NO exaggeration (now keep in mind I do not have a well developed sense of piano tone - but I'm not deaf) this little Acrosonic sounded at least as good as most Steinways or other nice grands I service (well, from about A3 and up anyway). The Acro sounded much better than most 50 year old Steinway grands (I service several of those). The tone was warm and round. No killer octave section. It just absolutely blew me away! :-)
>
> Terry Farrell> aspects to the 121 but lacking even the very small cheekblocks of the
> > 121. There were no cheekblocks whatsoever; they were not simply
> > missing - the piano had been obviously designed without them. It had
> > the customary stamping indicating "Quarter Grand BOSTON U.S.A." on the
> > strut as the pianos from pre-1909 or so do but where there is usually
> > the mark "121" it said "122". There was apparently, a very short run of
> > these pianos.
>
> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC