Hello Dale,
Thanks also to you for a very, informative, candid post and the
interesting, subtle observations that are obviously the voice of
experience. Some comments are interposed.
Phil
I appreciate your comments and & wished to share a few of my
own. I
know I'm taking usual risks by offering somewhat transparent
observations of
my work and others. If I'm unclear or (often the case) let me know.
Though I've always employed some form of rib crowning and have
enjoyed
many of these board as much as CC crowned board I've had other that I
didn't
enjoy as much.(which is also true of CC board of course) I'm sorry if
this
burst any ones bubble but this is honest assesment. Some of my earlier
subtle
disappointment were possibly due also to inadequate amounts of bearing
which John
Hartman was responsible for kindly enlightening me. Since then I feel
the
results have been remarkably improved, IMHO.
When I first started making my own boards about 8 years ago I was
crowning
my ribs less and drying more. Probably about 5% emc. As time went on I
started drying less (bout 6%emc) and crowning more, using a
progressively tighter
crown, as well as taller ribs. All this to say I'm still learning
interesting
stuff realizing I ain't never going to now it all.
It may be of interest, it is to me, that some models of S&S's and
inherent
designs charachteristics lend themselves more easily to sound board
replacement, IMHO. I mean that within reason no matter what you do the
sound is good.
I'm thinking of Model A- 2 & 3's. Where the string load and mass of the
board
work well together and low amounts of crown/ bearing seem to work as
well
higher amounts of crown/bearing whether they be Rc or CC. The O on the
other
hand, and this is strictly my subjective opinion, does better with a
flatter crown
and more moderate bearing loads. L's are more easly given board
transplantss
a are wide tail cousins the A's. Perhaps this is why the O was
discontinued
It is interesting to me, as I don't install soundboards and
get, here, to hear the voice of experience, as I say.
What got me to thinking about this stuff Phils post and a 1961 model L
in a
church that was "sonically" amazing and also a 1940 Concert Dept. - D at
the
symphony both with original boards. I've rebuilt the D, action and
strings. It
has no visible compression damage, has a lot of crown and bearing. It
sounds
as good any/ many D I've heard. Jeremy Denk, a young pianist from New
York,
played Taichoskys piano concerto no. 1 in B flat minor.
I don't think it is particularly unusual to find any number of
older Steinways out there in this kind of condition, as well as other
lines even though sometimes the RC advocates would seem to suggest that
the boards should have fallen into splinters a few days after delivery
those many years ago.
Jeremy is young pianist with amazing skills. We spoke about things in
the
piano he liked, such as the power and warmth of the piano. I voiced a
few
notes at the break he said sucked and after voicing he agreed they'd
improved to
his liking. He also liked the tone of bass& tenor up to the break. He
then
played thru the killer regions saying he wished it could sound more like
the
tenor which he liked very much. He confessed he'd take the piano home
any day.
By the way this piano has really a quite acceptable killer region.
I've
pulled the hammers into a horshoe shape on about 10 or 12 notes with the
sharpest bend in the shape is toward the keyboard at note 64. This helps
not only
power but sustain plus tone color when shifted.
In my opinion, the so-called killer octave is exaggerated as a
generalized fault of most of these instruments when brought up here on
the list and there is a particular reason for this. . Although there
is no doubt in my mind there is a propensity for a relatively weaker and
vulnerable area in the mid treble on many manufacturer's pianos, most
older Steinways and others, don't have such a degree of drastic failure
here as is commonly taken for granted when this subject is raised here
on the list. Yet, this is exaggerated into a deficiency which warrants
full condemnation of many lines, something I disagree with.
I believe an analysis of this expressed years ago in the Journal
of problems here being a function of the hammer line and elastic
characteristics of the hammer assembly ( this is also a large subject),
and striking point versus traveling wave speed on the string, is at
least as important as is it being considered a function of soundboard
characteristics and a measure of board failure. There are a large
number of factors that, when optimal, avoid loss in energy delivery
ultimately to the board, as, of course, you know, and which contribute
to the sound produced. Collectively, they are absolutely critical.
For example, tight bridge pins, hammer centers, jack centers, string
levelling, hammer angle, terminations efficiency, and others all of
which are frequently examined here. I think, in this area, it is
vitally important that they all be as optimal as possible - as they
begin to deteriorate then so may the sound show problems here sooner
rather than elsewhere. However, the method of hammer installation is
extremely critical, in my opinion.
I completely agree with the observation contained in Ron O's recent
post noting that loads on the ribs are here the greatest. There is no
doubt in my mind that this is true but I don't believe that the flexed
or, to used his more perjorative sounding term, "collapsed" board is
inherently and automatically a defect without other contributing
factors, nor has it been considered necessary, I believe, by design
departments of the past to insure, by whatever means of ribbing are
required, that crown will be absolutely guaranteed to persist except to
the degree necessary to maintain reliable termination in this area.
Ribbing past a certain point exacts a heavy price. I have always
been able to bring this area, in high quality pianos, at least to my
ear, and those of others who hear the pianos worked on, into an
acceptable condition by going through all of these kinds of things.
However, I do remember an Ivers and Ponds upright that seemed
intractable.
It is another heresy which I am guilty of as it has been argued by
Del Fandrich that no techniques can fix problems in this area several
years ago here on the list as they are due to soundboard failure and
most appear to agree. I disagree, however, as where there is at least
some crown in the board even if not in this area, and adequate
downbearing, then with light, cold-pressed types of hammers, operating
correctly, which are an extremely important, vital, factor, and the
other optimal, conventional techniques some of which are given above,
the sonic behavior of this area can easily be rendered completely
acceptable even if not maximal to the RC advocates. Certainly, it would
be a rarity to not be able to reach the point of eliminating such
difficulties that would suggest a problem which would necessitate
condemning the board to replacement for this reason alone.
Steinway pianos were not designed for the kind of hammers the
factory presently employs. Using a hammer that simulates the light,
highly flexible hammer with a staple that Steinway used from about 1885
to 1920 and installiing it on a shank that is designed to flex, of the
proper dimensions and with a hammer drilled to overcenter as did the
original designs, the hammershank assembly will overcome any problem
with a so-called "collapsed" board in this area. This has been my
experience many, many times over.
This method of hammer installation is relatively unconventional
nowadays and poorly known even among technicians who routinely assume
the hammer should be hung to strike square to the string which is the
conventional wisdom. It is impossible to achieve this in practice,
even when the striking distance makes such assumptions and the hammer is
drilled to achieve them as the hammer will flex on the shank in any
case. It is better, in my opinion, to design the hammer and shank so
that this flexion may be somewhat controlled and facilitate delivery of
power to the string on a hard blow and Steinway's method used then did
so. Its vital utility, and indeed necessity, appears, at least from
my point of view, to be misunderstood. Technicians disregard it, or
are unawares of it, and lose in the process an extremely powerful
tool.
It is my opinion that so many technicians believe the board has
"failed" and lament the "killer octave" simply because that are not
aware of this design option, or don't use it, or are unawares of the
power it can deliver to the string. . Who can blame them given the
present factory line of bs as regards hammers and voicing. If this
approach were taken to Dave Poritts piano described in his post of this
weekend it is, in my opinion, extremely likely the complaints about the
instrument would be put to rest.
Ahh my point. I sat thru the performance thoroughly enjoying the
sound of
a gracefully aging CC board detecting only sweet & intense musical
clarity
,power ,warm tone color and amazing projection of that sound on every
single
note including the killer octave. Any slight objections observed at the
keyboard
simply melted away in performance. How long will this 63 yr old board
produce
this kind of sound? I think a long time. This kind of tone in a S&S
piano is
why they are no 1 in solo piano performance not marketing.
This is precisely right and is my opinion and experience as
well.
Another other point is that that if a small shop were to diligently
monitor emc's more closely than mass production facilities, say to no
more or less
than 5% at time of ribbing & using a apropriately curved deck, more of
the A
plus pianos Phil referrs to would possibly be seen without so much
damage. That
is providing diligent climate control is used. Thats true of both CC &RC
boards
Also many1960 and 70s S&S's used sitka boards with sugar pine ribs
and
were made by guys seemingly paying attention to the important stuff.
These
pianos sound as good as any vintage ax I've seen especially in the
sustain dept.
I agree.
Another observation is that of the S&S's , Masons, Yamahas & others
that
had the best sounding CC boards IMO had some signs of compression in
the
panel. The ones I've observed with no cracks or compression but had an
otherwise
perfect looking flat panel came out often but not always sounding
inferior.
My own experience is that there are many pianos with cracks and
signs of damage which sound amazingly good despite these indicators.
Looking at the string instruments left lying about on stage,
particularly the basses and cellos, in the symphony here, which I have
abundant opportunity to do and have had for many years, one finds
numerous cracks, shims and repairs yet the instruments are still in use
and sound great. Incidentally, I personally don't believe cracks in
soundboards are by any means only due to perpendicular to grain
compression in the board exceeding the ASTM value at the proportional
limit, something I will take up in another post shortly. I agree with
you as to the better sound of boards which have some signs of cracking
and would hazard a guess that it is a visible indication of a
continuation, so to speak of the wlll-known process of stress
relaxation to a further point with implications for more flexibility
relative to the point achieved by the undamaged board. This suggests
profound implications to my mind, which, again I will go into later.
Nice to see you back on the list, Dale.
Regards, Robin Hufford
. ase of high emc's at ribbing. I don't know that Yamahas Are cc
crowned. I
rather think they are not, never the less the ones I like most have some
compression squishing going on that is observable when looking carefully
across the
panel.
Regards--Dale
Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote:
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: 7bit
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC