Steinway M

[David Love]

The people I know that do rescaling don't simply fit them into mathematical
models.  They use those models as guides and their experience to make
judgements outside of those guidelines.  It's a bad example.  I've also
never heard the designers that I listen to say that a compression board
sounds bad.  On the contrary, I have heard them say that a well executed
compression board can sound just as good as a rib crowned board.  The
issue, as I read it, seems to be predictability and longevity.  Neither do
I understand what is "dubious" about achieving goals on a consistent basis.
The goal is to produce a piano whose soundboard functions in a predictable
way.  I am the last one to dismiss art as an important part of what is
done, neither, however, would I attribute piano making to pure art.  There
is a fair amount of science.  More, perhaps, than some would like to admit.
The more we know about the science and what causes certain S&S M's to sound
good, while others do not, the better off we are.  The more that we can
eliminate the variables of execution through better design, the more
predictable the results.  I'm not sure why some seem so threatened by this.
The changes that I see have come about through a painstaking process of
analysis and design accompanied by a heavy dose of subjective assessment of
each attempt.  I don't really see too many people just throwing out a
mathematical model and building a piano and insisting that it must be good
because the math says that it must, as you suggest.    

Personally, I think it's important to keep in mind that the Steinway piano
became the leader in the industry due to (among other things) various
inovative designs through the years (some, as we know, which were later
rejected).   Why should we assume that all inovations and design changes
worth considering were achieved 100 years ago?  Or that a better
understanding of the structural properties of wood, for example, might not
have led to modifications byt the original designers of some of the designs
that have survived?  Furthermore, how do you know that the design of the
S&S M with it's hockey stick bridge wasn't a matter of cost, and that the
original designers knew that a transitional bridge would have served the
piano better (as it did with the A), but was not achievable within the
budget allowed for production?  Would that change your opinion?

Finally, if all this theoretical modeling is so meaningless, why are you
spending so much time messing around with magnetic capstans?    

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net

 > [Original Message]
 > From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
 > To: <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>; Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
 > Date: 9/8/2003 11:53:27 AM
 > Subject: Re: Steinway M
 >
 >
 >
 > David Love wrote:
 >
 > > I think those who argue for improved designs are probably making those
 > > arguments based on empiricism, not with disregard to it.  Implied in
these
 > > and other comments is that an attempt to produce a better design
somehow
 > > means that the desire is to remove the variable of the art or craft of
 > > getting the most out of that design.  I haven't read that in any of the
 > > designers' comments.  Rather, I see the ideas as attempts to remove
some of
 > > the obstacles to achieving artistic goals on a more consistent basis.
 > >
 > > David Love
 > > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
 > >
 >
 > I dont see it this way at all. Take for example the insistance by some
to define
 > a good scale by whether or not it fits into some mathematical model of
 > inharmonicity curves. Never mind at all what it actually sounds like. The
 > assumption is that a scale that fits those parameters neccessarilly
sounds good,
 > and one that doesnt sounds bad...  There are two whopping problems with
this
 > whole approach... number one it defines what <<sounds good>> based on
something
 > other then the perception of hearing, and number two it simply
disregards that
 > many people actually enjoy the sound of scales that fall outside of what
the
 > parameters say they should like. I fail to see that any really objective
empiri
 > can simply disregard the later, and assumes the first. Rather...that
sounds like
 > someone getting a fixed idea based on some model, and going out and
making
 > reality fit.
 >
 > I see no connection in condemning others methods, means, and ways as an
attempt
 > to remove any obstacles towards achieving artistic goals. Achieving such
goals
 > on a "consistant basis" is a rather dubious concept at best. What are
these <<
 > goals >> to begin with... and who says this set of goals is any better
then
 > another ??  And how does any of this justify the condemnation of one or
another
 > particular artistic endeavour as less worthy then another ??
 >
 > I welcome those who would explore new knowledge, and find new ways of
doing
 > things, creating new sounds, enlargening the artistic palette as it
were... I do
 > not welcome those who in the same breath find it neccessary degrade
others for
 > doing things differently.
 >
 > Cheers
 > RicB
 >
 > --
 > Richard Brekne
 > RPT, N.P.T.F.
 > UiB, Bergen, Norway
 > mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
 > http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
 > http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
 >