Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum It is Hard to Overcome Physics

Well said BDB, well said.

I do tend to agree with ROY 123 that the Steinway action rails are archaic now. At the time of their invention it was a good way to create a relatively light,stiff action frame/keyframe unit.
The sostenuto trap-work is clunky. But I don't like damper spoons or lift tray capstans. They allow for sloppy damper regulation that only becomes a problem when you use the sostenuto.

As to soundboards made with more rib crown than humidity crown. I do not see evidence that humidity crowned boards crack more easily than rib crowned. Crown has a function as the expansion joint-so boards bellied at too high humidity have less lee way when exposed to dry environments. That produces cracks quickly.

While this may be true, I have never come to fully understand how Hamburg and New York Steinways present such different pianos and results when comparing their identical models.

Almost like 2 entirely different species.

Drastically noticeable in their uprights and "quite a bit" in their grands.

So, "design" can't be all there is to it....

Norbert

You must have missed my paragraph previous to the one you quoted!

Many disagree with you. The whole reason for the capstans and spoons is to ease adjustment.

Parts availability has nothing to do with sostenuto design--it's like comparing apples to bricks.



Both theory and evidence show that compression-crowned board can fail early due to cross-grain compression set in the board. You refuse to believe it for reasons that I don't understand.


I didn't claim otherwise, I simply said that compression-crowned boards can be subject to early failure.


I didn't claim otherwise, and besides, since when do two deficiences make a virtue?

Many other attributes cause Steinways to sound and play different. Any variation in performance unless specifically intended to create specific variations is always a sign of marginal design or quality control.

Why is that an excuse? Again, when do two deficiencies make a virtue?

Here we agree. A properly made and prepped Steinway can be just superb.

Please explain how having to adjust 60+ capstans and 60+ spoons is easier than just making parts uniform when they are supposed to be even.

Please explain how spending maybe an extra minute to adjust the sostenuto justifies redesigning the parts so that the new parts will no longer be available for antique instruments. I can assure you that I have spent so much time replicating old parts that even if there were any significant difference in adjusting Steinway sostenutos compared to others, it would all be saved if I ever had to replace a part in their mechanism.

Please theory and evidence to show that "compression-crowned board can fail early due to cross-grain compression set in the board," neither of which you present. Please show that all the boards made in any other way have never had the same failures happen to them. I would be happy with a clear definition of what "failure" might be in this case, something that does not reference issues that I or others have been able to overcome through methods other than replacing the soundboard.

I do not feel that I need to justify Steinway or any other company for not making one model piano that is perfect. I just do not believe that one should denigrate any particular company, particularly for things that many of their competitors do differently, and in ways that could be considered worse. It is not good for the industry.

This would IMHO not be an issue unless one continually claims to be 'best of the best' there is. ['incomparable'...etc]



Thinking it's not good "for the make".

Everybody knowing the market today is far to diversified to make such claims.

Norbert

There are many manufacturers who claim to be the best of the best. Many of them are!

Unavoidable tolerance variations can stack up, and they have to be accounted for somehow. Key sticks aren't perfect, the felt pads aren't perfect, damper trays aren't perfect. Saying that adjustments aren't necessary if parts are uniformly made is like saying that car engines shouldn't need valve adjustments, which all engines have, either by means of mechanical adjustments or self-adjusting (hydraulic lifters)mechanisms.


Once again, I must say that parts availability is not related to design. If Steinway changed the sostenuto design, but decided it was important to make parts available for the old design, they could do so.


Oh, please--your protestations are quite beyond the pale. Del has patiently and exhaustively presented all the pertinent facts that any unbiased person should ever need. It seems obvious to me that you have some cognitive bias about this topic. ...just my opinion


You don't need to justify anything. No one expects any piano to be perfect. I simply brought up things about the Steinway grands that I think could be improved. Apparently, you, like other on Pianoworld, think Steinway is beyond criticism and anyone that does criticize them should be verbally whipped. Personally, I feel that criticism if good for the industry. If nothing else, it lets manufacturers know what at least some customers are thinking. Every product in the world is capable of improvement. Hey, I own a Steinway, and as I said, a good Steinway properly prepped can be a superb instrument. If that's not good enough for you...

Here is some fuel....

Coming from an engineering background, I think the Kawai Millenium III Ninja action blows away any wooden action including Kawai's Boston series made for Steinway.

Why build a delicate/accurate mechanism out of wood when so many advanced materials that have been proven to maintain much higher levels of stability than wood? The action itself does not produce sound.

Del compared Steinway B to Mason & Hamlin BB in a current thread about aesthetics. Although they are the same length the BB looks bulkier.

The BB weighs about one third more than B and I believe its soundboard area is about 25% larger.

How do these physical differences affect the sound of the two pianos? The more massive rim of the BB in particular?

So it boils down to someone who has never regulated a damper action thinks he knows better than someone who has.

Someone who thinks something would be better if something were changed thinks that is justification for orphaning older parts. You must be a poster boy for planned obsolescence!

"Theory and evidence" consists of citing one person, despite the fact that there has to be many, many others who disagree (because they are making pianos that he says are made wrong), and that there are thousands of counterexamples which disprove the theory.

It just seems that you, like others seem to do, just resent Steinway's success, and are plucking things out of the air merely to bash them.

ROY123,
I have modified at least 30 Steinway damper lift tray systems to have the pivot point coincident with the damper under-lever flange. I am with you on that-BUT the extra mass of an added capstan simply makes the system more clunky. I would prefer to have the lowest damper/pedal mass possible in the system that gives fast damping. That way it is quieter and quicker to use. The added capstans and the W,N&G back action system don't provide that. Once trained, regulating the Steinway style damper system is quicker than bending and turning all those spoons and capstans.

Just because Del has posted Homeric length Pianoworld polemics for rib-crowned boards over compression boards is no proof! I have heard and played several of his rebuilds where he was given free reign to re-design the soundboard/bridge/string set as he wanted. They all were very disappointing pianos.

I have been replacing soundboards for over 30 years and use compression crown. I also have developed some modifications to what I think is the Steinway system so I am not a strict traditionalist. And I agree with a lot of what Del says about pianos BUT I have some very distinct differences.

I HAVE heard several rebuilt pianos where the soundboard was fabricated with some version of a rib-crowned system that sounded very good-SO it is a subject that is very difficult to come to hard and fast proofs.

The consequences to the customer do call for sober reflection on what and how engineering changes to a piano design is approached.

Withindale,
The BB has a darker tone overall and a deeper bass than a B, if it is put together like the older ones. The BB treble scale is shorter than the A (5'8"). If you boost this when rebuilding-the treble become very good. I think the new BB's do that.

I like it when techs, designers and piano geniuses talk about "sound"

This is where my interest in any piano either "starts" or "ends".



Amazingly some companies have done exceedingly well without any of that. In fact, some of the "least visible" among them are presently sold out months ahead of time.

These are alos the ones needing least "marketing advice" or "consultancy" by others.

Perhaps they are doing something right not much depending on "marketing" their wares?

And no, not just speaking about the few we happen to represent ourselves...

There a number to this list.

Norbert

Norbert my friend:

I am afraid you have missed the boat on this one.

The Marketing effort needs to be in proportion to the results desired.

Even the great piano manufacturers that you cite do indeed "market" their products. It may not be in the same way as the "volume" brands to be sure, but the marketing efforts of the great companies succeed in their selling out their extremely limited production, that is the key point.

Imagine, however, what kind of "marketing" Sauter or Steingraeber or Fazioli would need to do if their annual sales goals were multiplied 25 fold. Or 50 fold. See the difference?

One need not run commercials on the Super Bowl broadcast to sell the annual production of Chateau Petrus. Gallo, on the other hand...

BTW, I have regulated a damper action--two, in fact. One on an old Baldwin C I had, and one in my current Steinway M. On what basis did you state, with no qualifications,that I hadn't????????
However, the real point is that the piano companies making and supplying the newer style damper actions think they are better. Do you know better than they? What pianos have you designed, built, and sold?



What you call obsolescence other people might call progress.


Most theories start with one person. Should Newton and Einstein be ignored because Newtonian mechanics and General Relatively each came from one person. I know of no counter examples. Please give some. You may recall that Del has explicitly said that sometimes compression crowning can work well, but in many cases it does not. That sounds like a marginal design that pushes the wood up to and often beyond its limit. Del has cited the authorities on the cross-axis compression strength of spruce, and the kind of compression strain induced in compression-strained soundboard panels. The only counter example of any worth is one that can cite, by means of some math, why the compression strain induced in the soundboard panel is not great enough to cause compression set in the panel. To my knowledge you have never done so.


I don't resent any piano company's success be they Steinway or the lowliest piano company out there. I merely suggested some things that I think would improve Steinway pianos. I was very careful to qualify my remarks, and made it clear that they were the opinions of a knowledgeable amateur and not an industry professional. There were only my opinion, which I have a right to. As I said before, some people think that Steinway is beyond criticism. Well, phooey to that--no companies are perfect, and all products sold in the marketplace have some deficiencies. I keep repeating that a good Steinway, well prepped, is a superb piano. If you think that's bashing, you have an unusual definition for it. Quite frankly, I've had quite enough of replying to your fatuous comments--you can have the last word. I have better things to do.

The curious fact is that these and several other companies will never be able nor "wish" to multiply their annual sales 25 fold.

For example doubting Charles Walter has these ambitions.

For those "small is beautiful", full employment king and quality tops.

Not exactly "missing the boat" in my way of thinking..

Norbert

No doubt, as you certainly have nothing to contribute here.

Well, I agree. Nor does Chateau Petrus.

So their "marketing" efforts are consistent with their business models. And are quite successful, which is my point.

I would like very much to be in their shoes, as opposed to some others.

And I know you agree.