Replied off list to much of this... I simply repeat... I have no arguement with anyone researching into what they can do with wood, engineering, the idea of the piano, and whatever else you can throw in. I fail to see why any of this needs to include all the negative commentary about those who choose to do things in their own fashion, and I fail to see that many of the engineering definitions as to what constitutes a good or bad soundboard, scale, or what have you can be so universally applied, as is often the case, to denounce the viability of manufactures who make very fine instruments in their own way... in the way they choose to. I do have an arguement with those who would say to us that << if it doesnt fit the models, it cant be any good >>. Especially, (and ironically enough) when these same decry the stiffling traditionalism that strangles development in our industry. As for why I am into magnets, action mechanics, and the rest of it... the answer is to learn what I can for the journeys sake. Not because I have some illusion of changing the world. And certainly not so that I can declare to others in our industry how foolish they are for not seeing things my way. Build what you do, and what you want to. Do the best you can and let your work speak for itself. The negative commentary of others is IMHO self destructive, and does no credit to our industry. Nuf said. Cheers RicB David Love wrote: > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives -- 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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC