Steinway M

[David Andersen]

Hello, all----
I wrote this to Ron N. privately but now it may as well be public:

(Ron N. wrote:)
>>What was done in the way of re-engineering and re-designing?

Ya know---the complete rib-crown, rescale, big cutoff, different hitch pin,
different bridge position thing---and believe me, I wanted to love it; I
wanted it to be magically and radically better than what we do in our
shop---but it just wasn't, to my ears.  And yes, there were caveats
delivered about the hammers used---but the action was "finished," and they
knew I was coming, so I'm assuming they tricked it out tuning, voicing, and
regulation-wise 
(at least, that's what I would have done for a visiting "fireman"---maybe
I'm assigning myself too much importance)----and I was deeply disappointed
because the action was almost impossible to control, and the tuning was
substandard.

I'm totally willing to give this redesign another heartfelt
listening/playing shot on a piano that's deemed "done" by the redesigner.  I
would love to do that, in fact; but I will say I was disheartened by my
experience the one time.

That's it.....I have no interest in any kind of adversarial relationship or
debate club kind of exchange---I'm open.
That was just my ears' and body's own practical experience.

David A.

on 9/9/03 11:39 AM, Delwin D Fandrich at pianobuilders@olynet.com wrote:

> So, David, this is your idea of "fair and balanced" reporting? Presumably
> you are referring to the piano you looked at in our shop. And you are
> right. The action was less than perfect. The hammers did sound bad. And,
> yes, the tuning and voicing were substandard. But let's tell them the rest
> of the story, shall we? The piano was a work in progress.

Yes, a work in progress, but you said ,"the action is finished; we just have
to decide on the hammers..."

> The hammers were
> on trial. They were of German manufacture, tried once again because we'd
> been hearing such good things about them from so many. Attempting to keep
> an open mind -- though our past experience with these hammers had not been
> good -- we tried them on this piano. It was a decision we quickly came to
> regret. They were impossible. So, since we were writing them off anyway, we
> started experimenting -- some of which has been written about previously on
> this list. 

*****!!!!
>Because of the hammer situation the action had not received
> anything like a final regulation. The strings had not been leveled, nothing
> much had been seated. But, of course, you knew all this.
Del, I did NOT know all this.  If I would have, my reaction would have been
entirely different, and  would have concentrated more on just trying to
perceive the voice of the back end of the piano. In my world, it makes no
sense whatever to attempt to voice a set of hammers on a piano without
string leveling and FINE action regulation.  That's just my protocol; I
assumed it was yours, but assumptions usually bite me in the ass.  I'm sorry
we had a miscommunication problem. As I said above, I would have loved to
love what you did---and I enjoyed myself in your company and appreciated
your hospitality.  Please understand---for me to take what is essentially an
entire working day to come see you and your piano on a day when I could have
chosen to work in Seattle or attend a Steinway technical seminar at Sherman
Clay, or both, says a lot about my excitement about YOUR work and my
commitment to hearing it with my own ears.

>So, I
> confess...I'm a bit puzzled why you would chose to leave it out of your
> little tale.
My "little tale?" 
" I hope that people can take the high road on this discussion
and openly share their information and opinions....insult[s]
 are really not in keeping with the spirit of the list
and the sharing of ideas for our mutual benefit...." (David Love)
 Wise words.  I do not want to fight.
> Regards,
> Del

Best,
David A.