Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Fascinating Steinway Phenomena

So when exactly does this happen? I suppose it must be before the piano leaves the factory, since most manufacturers stop putting dampers in the piano around the 5th octave. If they felt the sustain were so great up there, they would feel they need to put dampers there.

But this is beside the point. Let's say you buy an old, unrestored Steinway, Mason & Hamlin, or other well-known piano for X dollars, put a new soundboard, pinblock, action, etc. in it. You refinish it and sell it for Y dollars, because all your work made it into a wonderful piano. Why can't you make your own case and frame, and buy your own plate for X dollars, then do all the other work that you would do for a restoration, and sell a wonderful new piano for Y dollars?

Ori,

I have had variants of this soundboard discussion with BDB in the past.

I think a good explanation for the disparity in what is recommended re soundboard replacement may largely be related to geography/climate.

I used to live in Florida and a whole lot of the old grands I saw had been brought down from NY, NJ, and environs. I too felt that there was a tonal problem with these old boards that couldn't be solved except by replacement. It was part of a general syndrome of wood and joinery problems throughout the piano obviously caused by the indoor climates they lived in in NY, etc.

Now that I live in CA I see a lot of old pianos with wood that is in *much* better condition. And where BDB lives it appears to be even better than where I am.

I just had a 1921 California grand restrung and am very happy with the tone, sustain, singing quality, etc of the original board. It really does sound like a new piano.

So I think you are just in a really bad part of the country in terms of pianos getting beat up by climate whereas BDB is in a very preservative area. A friend of mine who was a tech in Fla but now lives in BDBs region feels the same way.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Maybe, but I was thinking about this as I was sitting in the back room listening to others in the house playing the Steinway, which spent the first 75 years of its life near Philadelphia. There's nothing wrong with the sound of it, despite the crack in the soundboard. The same is true of the M & H (R)T, which spent most of its life near NYC.

Now I can understand that moving a piano to Florida might be like putting it in a bathroom, but again, that's traumatic damage.

What about violins and other stringed instruments, which some believe improve with age in spite of arguably less effort to control humidity? There is also the truth that the wood available today is different than the wood that was available 50, 75 ot 100 years ago.

The rebuilder doing mine "insisted" on replacing the soundboard which he routinely recommends on older pianos. His reasons are much as Ori stated, resiliency of the wood, greater sustain with a new board. Yet this does beg the question brought up by ny1911, why are the old Cremona violins of the masters so sought after and considered better instruments by virtually all violinists? Is it the finish as some say, the wood? It seems this is one area that there is no concensus but who is right here?

Will

Hi Jeanne,

Thanks for asking about me. I'm up for just a bit of air this morning before plunging back into the business. This as always a very busy time of the year for us. Also, since Ori has begun writing here, much of what I might have said is being covered pretty well so I've been able to back off and do other things (like spend time with my grandchildren and sell pianos).

As to my thoughts about old soundboards, BDB and I have been around the block with this a few times. It's all in the archives.

In a nutshell, BDB and I live in very different climatic parts of the country; his is piano friendly, mine is not. BDB and I may have different standards; we have no practical way of knowing. I have saved many hundreds of soundboards and replaced thousands; I would guess that BDB has replaced very few soundboards. My experience is that the soundboards that I elect to save (the best candidates for being saved) often sound as good as new soundboards, but just a bit too often they don't. I also sometimes hear the consequences of saving a board that shouldn't be saved since some of my rebuild customers insist on saving a board that is marginal.

The bottom line is that all of my new soundboards sound good , many of my original boards sound good (because of careful pre-screening and my knowledge regarding the proper way to save an original board), and some of my original boards are disappointing in spite of all heroic efforts to save them.

BDB wrote:
As I stated before, the condition of the soundboard has a lot to do with humidity changes in the area the piano is.
I can only feel sorry for myself since I don’t live in wonderland (like BDB maybe?), this area where pianos that spent 75 years in Philadelphia are moved to, and then they perform as good as when they were new.

I guess it can also be a matter of expectations.

As BDB said, he probably strives to recondition a piano to a level that it would be, and I quote ” a lot better than the cheapest new piano”.

Other rebuilders try to rebuild a piano that would perform at least as good or better then it ever was.

It may appear to some that BDB hinted by saying “if you do all the work that some people claim you need to do with an old piano” that by saying "claim", not all the work is really needed and maybe it is money hungry rebuilders that "push" customers to throw their hard earned $$$ on something they don't really need.

I will relate to this issue because I feel very differently about it than BDB.
This is a sensitive subject, since many technicians and rebuilders are in one side of the fence or another.

Since I believe that a soundboard in a 60-70 years old piano should almost always be replaced(at least in my area), I had to give up on a lucrative market of “rebuilds”.

As BDB hinted, the retail cost of fully rebuilding an instrument, including a new soundboard, pinblock, pins and strings, dampers, key tops, key bushing etc…can be very expensive. It can easily top 20K-25K
Very few pianos justify this kind of expense in terms of return on the investment for the rebuilder.

Now BDB said (and again I quote) ” So I don't see any economic sense in doing a full rebuilding, including a soundboard”.
I am in a full agreement with you on this one.
Unless it is a Steinway or a Mason & Hamlin I feel it is not viable for ME to restore any other piano in order to resell it.

The difference between us is that I decided to avoid what BDB would call “rebuilt” and I would describe as “patching up” pianos altogether.
When I’m offered a Knabe, Baldwin or a Chickering for free (and it happens all the time) I refuse it.
Not because I can’t ”patch it” and sell it, but because I feel it is wrong for the customers, their kids (that more often then not will stop playing the piano) and for my reputation.
Other rebuilders feel they can restore these makes and recuperate their investment, but expect to pay over 20K-25K for a good rebuilding Job. There is nothing wrong with these pianos.

It is the 12K rebuilding jobs that I don’t like. These are the pianos that a year after they were bought I would refuse to take again for free.
These are the pianos with original soundboards, and usually too many “cut corners” in the rebuilding process.

Since Steinway and Mason & Hamlin have some $$ value even when in need of a full restoration (before the restoration), the cost of these instruments should be added to the rebuilding job.
Whenever I saw a dealer selling a vintage “rebuilt” Steinway for 20K he wasn’t giving any gifts.
He was usually robbing the customer.
Some customers find out soon enough what they have. Others are happy with their purchase even though their pianos perform to a level that is “better then cheapest pianos” but far less than their potential.
For what they paid they got a “name” on a fallboard and a piano that is outperformed by many new instruments that cost less.


BDB also wrote:
What???
I thought you rebuild pianos. Please take a look at one.
The dampers in Steinway, Mason, Estonia, Yamaha, Baldwin and any other modern piano I know of are going well into the 6th octave. The dampers will stop usually around E-6.
Maybe where you live not only the soundboards last forever, but the piano manufacturers (or “rebuilders?” )try to cut down cost by making the dampers an octave shorter.


Regarding violins:
I don’t know enough about violins. So I can’t comment on this issue.

I'll take a stab at this:

You cannot do that because the name "Steinway" is not on the piano. Without Steinway the corporation doing the marketing work, rebuilt Steinway pianos will not command the price they do and the piano rebuilding business in this country may shrink by an order of magnitude.

Take a look at the Fandrich and Sons operation. They do some sort of "rebuild," but do their Fandrich and Sons pianos command the prices of rebuilt Steinways size for size?

A wonderful piano is not wonderful enough without a wonderfully marketed name.

Can't compare pianos to violins, folks.

Violins are simple boxes, the tops are carved, the tension little, and 'singing tone" is not an issue.

If a violin soundboard loses mechanical impedance with age it's probably a good thing as it becomes more efficient a transducer, and you don't have to worry about sustain because sustain is provided by the bow.

If a piano soundboard loses mechanical impedance with age, the dynamics envelope changes for the worse. And if you lose sustain, it's gone.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Rick,

Does that mean a piano should sustain after the wire is damped, or the amount of time an undamped wire vibrates is affected by the soundboard and not only the wire itself and the tension that it is under? I guess I can see too much compliance in the board effectively damping the wires.

There is still the issue that the wood is quite different today than long ago.

I keep learning...not trying to refute anyone here.

Undamped. But it's not as simple as sustain time alone. It's also the shape of the sound envelope as the tone transforms over time from the initial attack to the eventual sustain. In a fresh-sounding board you still have the characteristic "round" tone with a nice, long transitional period between attack and sustain. In this transitional period the string exhibits a mix of horizontal and vertical motion.

In a board lacking impedance the vertical energy is sucked out right away rather than reflected back into the string, so you get this very brief 1/2 cycle initial attack sound followed almost immediately by pure horizontal motion. The transition portion is now mostly missing and along with it, good singing tone.

I wouldn't give too much credence to the "wood used to be different" theory regarding soundboard tone. There is a whole lot of discussion and mythology on the subject and it's very romantic, but it doesn't seem to hold up under objective scrutiny. If the spruce has a good strength-to-weight ratio it should make a good board. I don't see anything magical about the past in that regard. Now in terms of the beauty of hardwood grain patterns, that's a different story.

Regards,

Rick Clark

BDB,

Philly is not coastal NY or NJ.

I have encountered some surprisingly very nice old Philly pianos myself. Even had a discussion with Rich Gallassini about it a few years ago and why they fared better than NYC ianos. Seems that the typical indoor Philly climate is a lot easier on pianos.

Regards,

Rick Clark

That doesn't explain the (R)T. (The parentheses are because it is a reproducer with a hysterectomy.)

I've seen pianos that have been restrung poorly, and the results are what is ascribed to a dead soundboard. But it doesn't mean the soundboard is dead. It means the piano was restrung poorly.

Ori said:
However, if I could take that same piano and make it as good as any you sell for a fraction of that price, the only one it would be wrong for is you.

We're not in the same business. You sell pianos. I don't. I am disseminating my skills, knowledge and craftsmanship, so that as many people as possible can enjoy pianos and music. My reputation depends on my doing good, economical work, and not in telling them that they can't enjoy pianos or music unless they spend more money than they can afford.

Ori is a good guy. His (and Irving's) rebuilt pianos sell to an upscale market. I suspect their buyers wonder if they should buy a new Steinway or one of their rebuilt Steinways.

My philosophy closer aligns with BDB's because I have neither the budget or the skill to justify $40k for a piano. I must consider if a $15k rebuilt M&H with a shimmed board is better (for me) than what I can buy new in that price range. For my dollar it was, with the closest second going to Estonia. It was a toss-up for me, but my wife (who is much better pianist than I) prefered the M&H.

Would we be able to discern the difference between our rebuild and one from Ori or Irving? I sure we could. Do we regret our choice? Not in the least.

BDB,
As I said before, it is a matter of a decision and expectations.
You defined it very clearly. You expect the piano to sound “better than the cheapest piano”.
I want a lot more.
I decided to avoid this market because I don’t think it’s right for my customers.
I believe there are many new, or almost new pianos, in the price range of a “patch up” job, that will serve the customer a lot better then a dead piano with some lipstick.
I am willing to let people that insist on getting “dead’ pianos to buy pianos elsewhere.
Many of them will come back to me a few years down the road.

The difference between us is simple.
I have a choice. You don’t.

In our factory, we can “patch” pianos all day if we choose to. We can shim boards from dawn till dusk.
I decided not to take this route.
You on the other hand, clearly don’t have the equipment and the capability to replace a soundboard.
If you had to replace one, you’d have to send it to someone like me and it will cost you a lot of $$.
You won’t be able to SELL that 12K-restoration job you’re touting as “service to the poor”.
The “poor” that buy an 80 years old 20K “patched” Steinway thinking they’re getting a deal.
The same poor people that come to me few years later and paying an extra 25k to throw out the window everything that was “rebuilt” and start all over again.
If you had the ability to change soundboards you’d talk differently than, and I quote “there isn’t any reason to replace a soundboard, ever”.

I have a choice, and I choose to do what I believe is the right thing.
You obviously don’t have a choice so you do what you must.


By the way, I’m still waiting to hear what kind of pianos you “fix” that have dampers in the 5th octave.

ny1911,
There are other important things, as you may find out, in the performance of the piano other then just the way it sounds when you buy it.
I hope you’ll be happy with your choice also a few years from now.

I hope things really work out for you. If they will, however, you will be one of the lucky ones.
For most of those that play the piano, a new piano within the budget you mentioned, will be a lot more reliable and will serve them for a much longer time.

Especially if you live in the NY area.

Pianos in this area don’t fair very well and usually need full rebuilding after 70 years (we have here great swings in the RH).

If the piano was brought here after spending many years in a place like…Arizona, where it’s always consistent and dry, it may be in a much better shape.
The problem is that the piano will not acclimate to its new environment very well.
Usually, within a few years the piano will deteriorate in a very fast pace. So unless one is willing to relocate from NY to the area the piano came from. The odds are against the piano performing well for long.

It’s a shame, but it’s a no win situation.

So if you have a vintage Boston M&H (before 1930), than I suggest you install a Dampp-Chaser in AND control the RH of the room. Make sure the humidity is constant and hope for the best.

You’re a good guy too, and I hope things will work out for you.

Thanks Ori...if it doesn't work out, I can blame my wife!

You and I spoke on the phone at length about Estonia last winter. Shopping was half the fun though, so if I have to do it again in 5-10 years when my girls get a little older, I won't be too unhappy!

This is only partially a question of local or regional climate. It is also a question of how the soundboard assembly was originally designed and built. Since I’ve already gone into this subject under several different Piano Forum topic headings I’ll not repeat myself here — if you are interested please check the archives — but, briefly, if the original soundboard assembly was built as a purely compression-crowned soundboard there is inherently enough perpendicular-to-grain compression stress on the wood fibers within the soundboard panel to permanently deform them over time.

Thr process is called compression-set and is a well known phenomena among wood technologists. Whether some in the piano industry refuse to acknowledge or accept this phenomena as reality is another issue. But that refusal does not detract at all from reality — compression-set continues on whenever there is compression stress present. Unless the piano is located in some desert region which keeps the wood at an equilibrium moisture content of 4.0% compression-set is going to be an ongoing condition. The time required for compression-set to damage a soundboard panel sufficiently to affect tonal performance will be extended if the piano is kept in a mild climate that lacks high humidity extremes simply because the level of internal compression stress will be relatively low. Conversely, during periods of high humidity there will be greater compression stress within the soundboard panel and the rate of compression-set will be accelerated. Ultimately compression-set will work to reduce internal compression to some relatively stable minimum and along with that reduction will come some loss of soundboard assembly crown. Along with the loss of soundboard assembly crown will come an overall reduction in soundboard assembly stiffness.

At this point, as Rick Clark has pointed out, the issue becomes one of tonal performance. Or, perhaps, our expectations of tonal performance. The change in acoustical performance is (usually) very gradual and is evidenced by both the rate of sustain and the shape of the sustain envelope. As piano soundboards lose stiffness through time-related compression-set and the subsequent loss of crown and string bearing they begin to accept lower frequency energy at an increasingly faster rate. The tone quality becomes increasingly percussive with a tone envelope that, after a sharp attack sound, dies out rather rapidly. This sound envelope can not be altered appreciably through new hammers nor by any amount of voicing regardless of how skilled the voicer is.

If your tonal expectations find this type of percussive tone quality acceptable or desirable then nothing further needs to be said. or done. Keep (or get) the piano in mechanically good condition and play on. If, however, you don’t like that particular sound — and many do not — then something beyond this needs to be done. This acoustical problem will not go away by restringing alone. Yes, restringing alone (along with the related work, of course) might well make the piano sound better but it will still have that characteristic percussive attack and fundamental drop-off through (mostly) the upper third of the compass.

I cringe when I hear someone say, “As far as I can figure out, there isn't any reason to replace a soundboard, ever….” because I can’t begin to tell you how many otherwise nicely rebuilt pianos I have been called to evaluate after the fact that have left their owners dismayed. After having spent all that money they still hear the same tone character that led them to have the piano rebuilt in the first place. Sure, the piano looks great and the overall performance has improved some. The action performance is better, the new hammers do sound better and the overall voice is improved. But, despite all the warm and fuzzy assurances of the rebuilder, repairing the original soundboard — patching it, shimming it, whatevering it — simply did not yield the desired and promised results. The rebuilder may be justifiably proud of technical and aesthetic quality of his or her work and the price may have been quite reasonable for the work done but the customer ends up feeling they didn’t really get what they paid for.

You see, they didn’t really think they were paying for a piano rebuilding, they thought they were paying for a mechanism that would enable them to get the music in their heads out into the airwaves. And now, after spending all that money and after all that time, they find their instrument of choice is still not able to do that. Often it’s nothing they can really put their finger on but the overall result is just vaguely unsatisfactory. But now they have spent their money and they really can’t afford to start over. Regardless the physical quality of the rebuilding work, these owners have not received value for their money but they are the ones stuck with the result. Only the rebuilder, having happily deposited the check and made the boat payment, is happy.

No, piano soundboards should not be arbitrarily replaced. But, when the acoustical evidence is there telling us the soundboard has seen better days, we should also not refuse to acknowledge reality. We owe our clients better than that.

Del

Actually, Ori, you undoubtedly have less of a choice than I do. Having made the investment, you probably have to use it whether the piano or the customer needs it or not. I don't need any money from piano work any more, so I can concentrate on what the piano and customer needs. That was my focus even when I did live off the piano money, because I could easily have made a lot more money doing something else.

I also don't have a need to make outlandish claims. If I say that a piano I have worked on plays and sounds at least as well as a new piano that costs what I charge to do the work, that doesn't mean that they don't play and sound as good as a "comparable new piano," whatever that may mean. After all, it's kind of difficult to say that old Steinways I work on sound like new Steinways, when new Steinways are all over the map. (As are other makes. I just use Steinway because they are the most common old piano that are still around.)

To answer your question, all my pianos have dampers in the fifth octave, but just about all of them stop having them around the fifth octave, as I said.

Perhaps you could answer some questions that I have asked before, but have never gotten satisfactory answers:

How do you measure sustain in a measurable, repeatable, objective way?
How do you know exactly when a soundboard needs to be replaced?

BDB,
I start to feel uncomfortable here.
You refuse to hear it from me.
You refuse to hear it from Irving.
You refuse to many others.
And now, after Del wrote a “hall of fame” post, one that people should print, frame and hang on their walls, you still refuse to believe what you read.

Very few people know about pianos as much as Del, so I would suggest you read his post again.

However, since Del's writing stile is so eloquent and polite, and since you decided to ignore his post altogether as if you couldn’t bear to read it, I would like to offer some help here and “translate” it for you as I read it..

For your convenience, all of Del’s quotes are in bold letters. My simple translation is not.

if the original soundboard assembly was built as a purely compression-crowned soundboard there is inherently enough perpendicular-to-grain compression stress on the wood fibers within the soundboard panel to permanently deform them over time.

Translation: The soundboard wouldn’t last forever.


Whether some in the piano industry refuse to acknowledge or accept this phenomena as reality is another issue.

Translation: He is talking about you, and the likes of you.

But that refusal does not detract at all from reality

Translation: wake up and face the facts.


Unless the piano is located in some desert region which keeps the wood at an equilibrium moisture content of 4.0% compression-set is going to be an ongoing condition. The time required for compression-set to damage a soundboard panel sufficiently to affect tonal performance will be extended if the piano is kept in a mild climate that lacks high humidity extremes simply because the level of internal compression stress will be relatively low. Conversely, during periods of high humidity there will be greater compression stress within the soundboard panel and the rate of compression-set will be accelerated.


Translation: The soundboard “dies” with age. Greater humidity swings will “kill” it faster.

If your piano is the Kalahari Desert you’re lucky, You could play to the Bushman for a very Long time.

At this point, as Rick Clark has pointed out, the issue becomes one of tonal performance.

Translation: Hello, Rick also tried to get to you.


Or, perhaps, our expectations of tonal performance.

Translation: Maybe you should aim higher.

The change in acoustical performance is (usually) very gradual and is evidenced by both the rate of sustain and the shape of the sustain envelope.

Translation: It sounds like someone pulled strings over a tin can.


This sound envelope can not be altered appreciably through new hammers nor by any amount of voicing regardless of how skilled the voicer is.

Translation: You’ll succeed in making a piano with a “dead” soundboard sound as good as one with a new one, the same day you’ll be able to wave your magic wand and turn a pumpkin into a limousine.

I guess life is great in wonderland.


If your tonal expectations find this type of percussive tone quality acceptable or desirable then nothing further needs to be said.

Translation: If people that are willing to spend 20K for a “rebuilt” Steinway think that it should sound as good, or just a little better than the 38” spinet their aunt got for her 7th birthday 45 years ago, then nothing further needs to be said.

If, however, you don’t like that particular sound — and many do not — then something beyond this needs to be done. This acoustical problem will not go away by restringing alone.

it will still have that characteristic percussive attack and fundamental drop-off

Translation: If you don’t like your Steinway grand to sound like your aunt’s spinet, you’ll actually need to RESTORE it.

I cringe when I hear someone say, “As far as I can figure out, there isn't any reason to replace a soundboard, ever….”

Translation: No need to translate here. I cringe too.
And by the way, he quoted you-BDB.

….” I cringe when I hear someone say, “As far as I can figure out, there isn't any reason to replace a soundboard, ever….”

After having spent all that money they still hear the same tone character that led them to have the piano rebuilt in the first place. Sure, the piano looks great and the overall performance has improved some. The action performance is better, the new hammers do sound better and the overall voice is improved. But, despite all the warm and fuzzy assurances of the rebuilder, repairing the original soundboard — patching it, shimming it, whatevering it — simply did not yield the desired and promised results.

Translation: The owners/buyers finally figured out they had been “stiffed”.


You see, they didn’t really think they were paying for a piano rebuilding, they thought they were paying for a mechanism that would enable them to get the music in their heads out into the airwaves. And now, after spending all that money and after all that time, they find their instrument of choice is still not able to do that.

Translation: The owners/buyers finally figured out that they were “conned”.


But now they have spent their money and they really can’t afford to start over.

Translation: The owners/buyers finally figured out that they threw their money away and that the great ”deal” wasn’t such a bargain after all.


Regardless the physical quality of the rebuilding work, these owners have not received value for their money but they are the ones stuck with the result.

Translation: Stiffed, conned, too late buddy.

Only the rebuilder, having happily deposited the check and made the boat payment, is happy.


Translation: the “patch up/con” artist is cruising towards the sunset with a bottle in one hand a bundle of cash in the other…


Now, and lets make it very clear so there won’t be any mix up…Del did NOT write this. BDB did.

BDB wrote:
No, I could take people's money too, if I was a crook.
I could send their pianos to some of the wholesale butchers that do a complete “rebuiled” for less then $4000. Is this what you do and charge 12K for?

Ahhhh… sorry, you don’t need any more money…You could have done something else…Your doing volunteer work all day…Your “customers” don’t pay you anything.

Well I’m glad you made so much money and now you’re cruising into the sunset…
I am surprised though, you’re not ashamed to come out and say it. After all, now we all know how did you make your money.
Kudos to you.

BDB also wrote:
Ahhh...now you admit that pianos HAVE dampers in the 5th octave...so now around the 5th octave can be the upper part of the 6th. If so, then It can also be the lower part of the 4th octave...Do you know of any pianos that have no dampers in the 4th octave then?
As you said, and I quote:"most manufacturers stop putting dampers in the piano around the 5th octave".
I just love it how you try to justify your comments.
A 2 year old with some integrity will just say...OOOps, I made a BU-BU.


Now to answer you questions:
BDB wrote:
Well the first one… How do you measure sustain in a measurable, repeatable, objective way?

I think Del answered this already for me so I’ll just quote him again.

Del said:
The change in acoustical performance is (usually) very gradual and is evidenced by both the rate of sustain and the shape of the sustain envelope.

Your second question:
How do you know exactly when a soundboard needs to be replaced?

It's an easy one to answer… I am not deaf!.