Dale, Dave and Dave on rebuilding

[Ron Nossaman]

> The accounting question aside ("Just how much extra work / time...."), 
> the three seemed at first to be talking past each each other, ie., their 
> issues didn't connect for an actual give-and-take. 

The accounting shouldn't be a problem. Modifications are payed for 
like anything else. More work takes more time and costs more money.


>That being said, the 
> points presented by each and collected as a whole made a good overview. 
> Both David Hughes and Dave Snyder say that some of the things which 
> can't be changed in a small rebuilding shop (the rim) limit what is 
> gained by re-design of things things can be changed. 

As these very same things limit what results can be obtained by 
conventional methods and approaches. Re designers make compromises 
around what they have to work with just like everyone else, and have 
never intentionally claimed otherwise. It's interesting to me that 
the people who say these things don't ever specify what it is about 
the rim or plate that they would change if they could. I'd find that 
interesting.


>Also that running a 
> business tends to encourage (demand, actually) predictable workflow and 
> results.

Again, the extra work is budgeted both in cost and time expenditure. 
We start with a plan, rather than making it up as we go, so we have 
as good an idea what we're up against as the conventional rebuilder 
- who has never been surprised, right? Predictability of result is 
statistically better, over a greater range of pianos with redesigns. 
Shops that specialize in Steinway and Mason & Hamlin rebuilds can, 
over time, learn specific workarounds for specific models of pianos. 
Within their specialty, that can be pretty sure of the time it 
takes, and the result, from having done so many of the same thing. I 
can now do a one-off of a reasonably decent piano make or model I 
've never worked with before, and produce a more dependably better 
sounding piano with redesign than I ever could have by conventional 
methods and the knowledge I had ten years ago. That's why I pursue 
this. I like the capability and the results.


> Dale's example on a Steinway O assumes a good rim and a name which 
> someone would want to pay money for, and goes on to list modifications 
> standard now for a number of well-respected rebuilders. But no mention 
> of lesser pianos, such as the one which suggested this article to Mary 
> Smith.

Which is a shame. So many of the "lesser" pianos have so much 
unrealized potential to be so much better than they were as 
originally built, with some re engineering.


> I remember back in 1992, hearing Chris Robinson say that he had fooled 
> around with installing a plywood board in a runt grand just to see if he 
> could boost the musical capabilities of such common mongrels. It didn't 
> sound like a successful experiment.
> 
> Bill Ballard RPT

We also don't know the details of what he did and didn't do.
Ron N