---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Other interesting tid bits in the rest of the post as well. Dale Hello Dale, Congratulations on the reception received for your piano there in Sacramento. I hope sometime I may be able to hear it myself. I am not the least bit surprised to hear that your piano has had such a wonderful reception. I have just now waded through three or four hundred emails but want to make a few comments interposed below. Some will be about your piano and some regarding Ron O's frustrated post. I certainly hope, if he is reading this, that he will reconsider any departure as he is a most valuable contributor to this list, along with the other members of the group of "redesigners'. Still, this does smack somewhat, at least, as far as I can see, of "see it my way or I am going to take my marbles and go home." I think we all have this impulse when deeply held beliefs are challenged, which is perfectly natural, but we should try to overcome such as it is really, in the contention of ideas and examination of the possibilities that rapid progress may well lie. _Erwinspiano@aol.com_ (mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com) wrote: David wrote I think there are those who when put to a rebuilding request by a customer need to try and recreate a "Steinway sound" but might wish to employ what has been represented as a more reliable method than CC. But if the RC&S method produces its own unique characteristics and is, as you say, something which certainly didn't sound like a Steinway, then it would be good to know whether those differences are inherent in the differences between the two methods or simply a matter of customizing a particular design. Hi Dave >> I've been following this thread in my post convention fatigue. I'd like to speak to this. I build rib crowned boards with some panel compression support as well. These typically have slightly taller ribs & less wide than the original. I also have some compression in the panel. I typically dry to no less than 5.5% emc & no more than 6%. I like this range for the results I'm getting & regional climate conditions. It's not excessive by any means . I believe for my ears I like the sounds of designs that retain some compression. I Use sitka spruce panels, which Steinway does & some diaphramizing which they also do. The panels are similar in thickness but on the thinner side. I press in a dished caul as they do. I use the same scales with minor alterations. & Yes I like the tri-chord sound in Ds. I use primarily white Spruce ribs on the bottom and sometimes some Sitka in the top treble(s) ie. Bs & Ds. Which they Don't. I no longer use sugar pine except in some instances or in smaller pianos. Which they still do in ALL models. I can hear the difference between a board ribbed with sugar pine & one with spruce. I market what I call a "variable radius soundboard" crown which means the ribs are cut with increasingly steeper radius going into the treble & many folks on this list & off do this. Most of this is not news & many use this. My point is that all our bellied pianos sound to me like some of the best Steinways I've heard even though they are built in this non traditional way. I have fewer Killer octave problems & better balance of registers or as good as the very best C.C. design at least . This point is the same as what others are saying ,The methods are most reliable & predictable. My point is,finally. To me These pianos aren't some derivation of the Steinway sound but the best qualities of the Steinway sound. Great sustain,even thru the breaks & treble areas, rich tone color, & power which isn't driven to distortion & FFF levels. This is very nice to hear and, personally, judging from your comments made over the years regarding sound I have always had the expectation that your pianos would sound great and am not at all surprised to see such results obtained as I said above. I have similar, although perhaps slightly differing, expectations for the others in the redesigner crowd, some contributing here regularly and some not. However, generally it has not been you urging the view that anything but the latest creation of some design methodology was the only acceptable result out there, but such a view has been urged carrying with it the not too subtle, insidious, implication that people elsewhere were poor, deceived fools, for liking what they like. Some have, and at one time this list blatantly operated this way which was most unfortunate, in my opinion. I am well aware of the sacrifice of time, hence money and the draining emotional strain involved in moving contrarily to established norms, for example, the Steinway or Yamaha juggernaut, and respect this, and, also, very much the efforts, as I have always said, of those trying to produce pianos differing in various ways. Why would they try to produce anything but the best product they could achieve given the circumstances? All know this must be the case. Yet with any contrary view one is always disheartened by what seems to be a kind of badgering and supercilious dismissal of any other perspective on the part of some of this group, not necessarily you, especially when this seems to be associated with events which, in one's own experience, are different, for example the public appreciation for Steinway, whether warranted or not, which has just been the immediate source of another dustup here on the list. I find it pointless to argue back and forth on some dispute, especially, as I once tried on a certain set of principles, at the cost of a considerable waste of time and productive energy, as it is not likely any minds will be changed here. As I have said before, here are only words and the experience of hearing or playing a particular instrument is likely to be the only way that individual minds will undergo suasion one way or the other. So, congratulations again, on your results. Even though he has been upbraided by a number of posters for what some would call such bantering, I think Richard Brekne makes a valid point. It does take two to tango. One can't, or at least shouldn't, dismiss away relevant facts, even if inconvenient and the status of Steinway is by no means simply the result only of marketing PR. Many times I disagree with the bases of some claims made by some of the redesigner crowd: in my opinion, they could proceed possibly more expediously if they would get, for example, some of the underlying physics and history straight, at least from my point of view, and from that of, perhaps, others. Still I certainly respect the efforts that come from this school of thought wholeheartedly. The latest discussion on simple wave theory, to take but one instance, is another, among the many, examples of the facts of some of the most elemental, fundamental aspects of physics seemingly disregarded, misunderstood, or, unknown. How can it be expected then to be otherwise than that substantial contention would then flow from such types of things? I live in an area and, a city particularly, overrun by trembling, vaunting culture snobs who buy their "culture" in the "Cultural District", who are frequent attendees at the very numerous musical concerts and who are completely taken in by the Steinway mystique. Here, as elsewhere, at concerts in most venues, they listen frequently to instruments at the same time both clangy, dull and uneven, no doubt inferior to the same instrument had it employed even the simple remedy of using a merely adequate hammer, and stumble over themselves to scream and applaud after each recital. Yet, underneath these defects, especially from seats in the hall, there is still a great sound, or at least musically acceptable one, although certainly capable of much improvement in my mind. I think Richards point was that it is this, as well as the PR hype, they respond to and to deny this, in my mind, is to miscontrue the obvious. Nevertheless, to chronically lay at the feet of the substantial marketing bull and PR machine of this company the onus of impeding the development of the industry, and attributing "stagnation" to it, is not factual, in my opinion. If anything, it should be attributed to the ignorance and superficiality of the consumer. However, they may just like the sound, as do I on most of these intruments. This is not to say it cannot be better. I have no doubt it could and, indeed, has been. I have no problem or difficulty selling my clients on these modern features. When they hear it they get it. NO client has ever said no I don't want you to do that & none ever said it didn't sound like a Steinway. Ask any one who heard My D (at the PTG Cal State) last weekend if they heard a Steinway Sound. Or the Concert artist who performed Gershwin ,who stopped before the finale of Rhapsody in blue To State what an Amazing piano this was & because of it he was performing his uncut version. It was a great experience for me personally & I was gratified to have many enthusiastic words of support from some other rebuilders, Technicians & friends. I thank them all with mutual respect & support Dale Erwin Once again, I want to say how I appreciate these kinds of posts, coming, as I said once before, from the voice of experience and giving us the benefit of it, as does Ron O, with his very insightful posts on a generality of subjects and, particularly, the wonderfully innovative, I-rib soundboard he has produced. Similar kudos to Ron N, Dell Fandrich and Terry Falwell for their efforts but we (meaning the non-redesigner crowd) still have to reserve the right to express our own opinions, even if arising from different experiences and perspectives. Regards, Robin Hufford think Sarah pointed out what might be some considerations in those differences. I can't address those issues with any real knowledge as I am not an engineer and lack adequate experience. But I can hear differences between different types of pianos and I am interested in exploring the topic further even if it is only in a speculative manner. David Love _davidlovepianos@comcast.net_ (mailto:davidlovepianos@comcast.net) Erwins Pianos Restorations 4721 Parker Rd. Modesto, Ca 95357 209-577-8397 Rebuilt Steinway , Mason &Hamlin Sales _www.Erwinspiano.com_ (http://www.erwinspiano.com/) ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/d2/72/12/81/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC