Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Stanwood?

For the past month, I have been shopping for a new piano, and as of now these are my top choices: a Bluthner, a Mason & Hamlin A, a Bosendorfer Conservatory, an Estonia, and a Steinway L or B. I like the action on all the European brands, but I'm not so sure about the action in the Masons and Steinways.

Which (if any) of the above models would be most appropriate for Stanwood? And, more generally, what do you think of Stanwood? I wrestle with hand pain, so anything that reduces friction in the action appeals to me. Finally, the Stanwood tech I have in mind would charge somewhere between $2800 and $3800. Is that range in the ballpark?

Shoot Derick an email or search in The Piano Forum on "stanwood". Derick just had a Falcone "Stanwoodized" last month.

Hi Grotius,

As Jolly said I had my Falcone 'Stanwoodized' in March. I can't comment on Estonia as I've never played one, but I do find the Hamburg Steinway and the Boesendorfer to have very nice actions that need little or no alteration (IMO).

Some new American Steinways have nice actions (though it's rare). I don't care for M&H actions but at least the 'problem' is consistent; the actions are too heavy.

If I were looking at either of these pianos, I would plan on adding the Stanwood system; unless you get lucky and find a nice sounding Steinway with a nice action. The quote you were given to "Stanwoodize" sounds about right.

I'd also, and I know this will cause a flap, plan on yanking off the Renner hammers on the M&H. Folks claim they can be voiced properly by a skilled tech. I don't doubt them, but I have never found a tech that could get the 'harshness' out of either the M&H or Falcone with Renner hammers. I had my hammers replaced when I put on the Stanwood upgrade.

Just my own personal opinion. I'm not a concert pianist, or piano tech, just an opinionated engineer geek. So take it for what it's worth and where it comes from.

BOL,
Derick

Thanks for your replies. Derick, I'm glad you confirm my own intuition -- that Stanwood seems more appropriate for a Steinway or Mason & Hamlin than a Bosendorfer or Bluthner. I'm also glad to hear that my tech's quote is in the right ballpark.

I'm also glad you mentioned your preference for hammers in the Mason and Hamlin. I love the model A, but occasionally the treble gives me doubts. As it happens, I will be playing it again tomorrow, and I will ask the tech and salespeople about the hammers.

I gather, then, that you like your Stanwood system?

Regards, Grotius.

Grotius,

Yes, I like the Stanwood system very much. The action is flawless. I can now do things I never thought possible before.

I can't comment on the M&H A (never have played one), but the BB's that I have played sound very 'boomy' in the base and very sharp in the treble. Which is the same problem I had with my Falcone. I replaced the Renners with Abels. Someone else on this board did the Stanwood upgrade and put Steinway hammers on his M&H BB. He, too, is pleased with the results.

Of course, voicing is a matter of preference. So you may want to stick with the Renners. Best to wait until you have it in your house for a few months before replacing the hammers (figure another $2000 or more for that job). But when all is said and done, you will have one heck of a nice piano.

Derick

Derick, or anybody,

I am curious about the Stanwood. From my limited education on it, I understand it to be a matter of balancing all the action parts, recognizing that from the factory (and/or perhaps from wear over time) hammers, shanks, flanges, wippens and *whatever* are subject to variations in the weight of the materials used, thereby creating potential individual key inconsistencies depending on the actual specific action in question.

First of all am I even close on my definition? If not could someone supply a definition? If I am close would this be considered *somewhat* like rebuilding the action, except many parts are not actually replaced but rather *balanced* by tweaking (highly technical piano term ) each key's components relative to the others?

And how does this compare to a completely rebuilt action where all parts are replaced and assuming the job is done by a highly competent tech? Isn't this supposed to give you a smooth, properly balanced touch and feel? Would either of these processes (Stanwood or rebuild) yield the same result?

Enquiring minds want to know!

John,

You pretty much have the idea. Weight and ratios figures heavily into it process as you can see from text below that I lifted from David Stanwood's website. You can also see how much is considered when making the 'adjustments'.

I do know that some parts in my action were replaced, springs, key shanks, additional springs were added, but I'm not sure what else.

Can a competent tech rebuild an action and make it as good as a 'Stanwoodized' action? He can probably come close. But I think it would cost a lot more to rebuild an action than to 'Stanwoodize' an existing one. Maybe one of the techs can answer this.

The most amazing part of a Stanwood action is the complete evenness of voicing through out the entire keyboard.

As I said, I had new hammers put on when I had the action upgrade done. It took the tech about 1.5 hours to voice the piano. I think that is incredible considering that these were brand new hammers. I've had techs work an entire day on my old hammers and I was never happy with the outcome. To be honest, the piano isn't perfect, 1 note is a little bright!

Derick

BALANCE WEIGHT (BW) - The amount of weight placed on the measuring point that causes the key to be balanced.

Found as: BW = (D + U)/2

DOWN WEIGHT (D) - The minimum amount of weight, to the nearest gram, placed on the measuring point that causes the key to drop while maintaining a slow controlled motion of the hammer.

EQUATION OF BALANCE

The algebraic expression that describes the working key in a state of balance in terms of the New Touchweight Metrology. Described in the June 1996 PTG Journal as:

BW + FW = (WW X KR) + (SW X R)

FRICTION WEIGHT (F) - The minimum amount of weight added to the balance weight that causes the key to drop while maintaining a slow controlled motion of the hammer or the minimum amount of weight taken away from the Balance Weight that causes the key to rise while maintaining a slow controlled motion of the hammer.

Found as: F = (D - U)/2

FRONT WEIGHT (FW) - The amount of static weight, to the nearest 0.1 gram, that the level key, tipped on its balance pin point, exerts at the measuring point.

KEY FRICTION WEIGHT (KF) - A component of Friction Weight which is the minimum amount of weight, to the nearest gram, placed on the measuring point of a key that causes the key to fall, with the Front Weight(FW) set to zero with temporary weight and with the key on its frame and the stack removed.

HAMMER WEIGHT (HW) - The weight of the hammer with shank removed.

KEY WEIGHT RATIO (KR) - The ratio of downward force on the capstan/heel versus the corresponding upwards force at the measuring point as translated through the key or the amount of weight at the measuring point needed to balance 1.0 grams of weight at the capstan/heel contact point.

MEASURING POINT - The datum point on the top of the key 13mm or ½" back from the front lip of the key. Weights are centered on this point when measuring Up Weight and Down Weight. When measuring Front Weight(FW) the key rests on a roller bearing on the scale pan. The point at which the front of the key rests on the bearing is directly below the Measuring Point. Any measures that contain the term to Balance Weight refer to static up or down forces at the front of the key through the Measuring Point.

SHANK STRIKE WEIGHT (SS) - The amount of weight to the nearest 0.1 gram, of the shank, pivoted without friction at the hammer center with shank level, measured at
the strike line radius.

STRIKE BALANCE WEIGHT (SBW) - The upward static force at the measuring point resulting from the static weight of the hammer and shank, leveraged through the shank, wippen, and key: Found as: TBW - WBW

STRIKE WEIGHT (SW) - The amount of weight
to the nearest 0.1 gram, of the shank and hammer, pivoted without friction at the hammer center with shank level, measured at
the strike line radius.

STRIKE WEIGHT RATIO (R) - The ratio of downward force at the hammer versus the upwards force at the measuring point as translated through the shank, wippen, and key, or the amount of weight placed on the measuring point needed to balance 1 gram of Strike Weight (SW). Found as: SBW/SW

SUPPORT SPRING BALANCE WEIGHT (BWS) - The difference between the balance weight with the wippen support spring disengaged and with it engaged.

TOP ACTION BALANCE WEIGHT (TBW) - The combined upward static force at the measuring point resulting from the static weight of the wippen leveraged through the key and from the static weight of the hammer and shank, leveraged through the shank, wippen, and key. Found as: BW + FW

UP WEIGHT (U) - The maximum amount of weight, to the nearest gram, placed on the measuring point that the key can lift while maintaining a slow controlled motion of the hammer.

WIPPEN BALANCE WEIGHT (WBW) - The upward static force at the measuring point resulting from the static weight of the wippen leveraged through the key, found as: KR x WW

WIPPEN WEIGHT (WW) - The amount of weight, to the nearest 0.1 gram, of the level wippen, pivoted without friction, at the wippen center, and measured at the capstan/heel contact point.

In reference to the above comments about hammers and the Mason & Hamlins, on the few occasions I've heard them with Renners(on the BB models)I found the tone to be much too "glassy" sounding.
So on a model A that we have in our shop we achieved excellent results with Abel hammers. And a BB we have has Tokiwa hammers(actually called "Pacific Gold" hammers as they're made to meet the specs of the local piano supply house here in L.A.)and it too has the warm sound that characterizes the better sounding M & H's.

Mark Mandell
www.pianosource.com

I would think your pleasure with the voicing is perhaps more a reflection on the skill of your tech than anything in the Stanwood design. Or no? Top notch techs are not easy to find. Hold on to that one!

John,

I'm sure that the skill of the tech has a lot to do with it. But, on the Stanwood website they discuss how the system greatly aids in voicing.

My former tech is very well known. But after getting really ticked at him, I decided it was time for a new tech. I called Faust-Harrison asking for a tech recommendation, the ONLY name I was given was his. In fact I called several places in NYC and my former tech's name came up over and over again.

Since I am so ticked at the former tech, I'm going to be very blunt. He knows nothing about how touch weight in an action works. My Renners were not replaced just because I felt like it, they had to be replaced because he shaved so much felt off the hammers, in an attempt to lighten the action, that he destroyed them.

I had many techs after that look at the piano. Some said shaving felt was one approach to action lightening, other's suggested adding weights in the keys, but they all agreed the hammers were shot.

After spending a ton of money only to wind up with a piano with a slightly lighter action but ruined hammers I decided to listen to what Mat D. (the M&H BB owner with Steinway hammers) did and to seriously look into the Stanwood upgrade.

Of course, I didn't just jump into this. I checked into the idea of shaving hammers and adding weights to the keys and there seemed to be no clear consensus as to what approach to take. When I looked at the Stanwood website it was clear that every aspect of the action was focused on and key weighting/hammer weights are only one piece of the puzzle.

When I found the Stanwood tech in my area I checked out his work; which he was more than happy to show off. A concert hall, a recording studio, and two private owners. The concert hall had a Steinway D, the private owners both had Steinway B's, and the recording studio had a Falcone 74. All were flawless. He had Tokiwa hammers on all the Steinways, Abel's on the Falcone.

At that point I knew I was making the right decision. If you play my piano and then play a Hamburg Steinway C, it would be very difficult to feel and hear the difference. And that's how it should have been since the scale designs are the same.

As I said, I'm not a concert pianist or piano tech, all I can do is base things on my experience. And, in my experience, Stanwood is the best thing to come along for pianos in a long, long, time. And Renner hammers do not deserve the praise they've been given (IMO). Petrof is another piano that needs to dump the Renners. It would be so much nicer without them.
Add Stanwood and they'd be giving the big boys a serious run for their money.

Again, these are just my opinions. I don't want anyone to think I'm putting down their piano. My preferences are just that, my preferences. There are a lot of very good pianos out there, but I think few are at their full potential.

Derick

Derick,

Thanks for the further info. You went through a lot and obviously did your homework. I'm glad to see it worked out so well for you. As I said before, really good techs are hard to find.

John C.

I scanned some of the charts I was given on touch weights of my piano before Stanwood and after Stanwood and sent them to you. Check your email.

Derick

Today I got a chance to compare a Stanwoodized Mason and Hamlin BB with a "normal" BB, and I did notice a difference. For one thing, the touch on the Stanwoodized model was a bit lighter. For another, it seemed easier to play softer on the Stanwoodized model. If I get a Mason & Hamlin, I think I will get it Stanwoodized.

derick, your experiences with your former tech are ringing some bells. would you mind posting just his initials here?

Grotius,

One of the great things about Stanwood is that the touch is adjustable. If that Mason felt a bit too light, it wouldn't take long for a tech to make it heavier.

You just reminded me of the other great thing about Stanwood and that is how soft you can play the piano. Come to think of it, I don't think I've played any piano that can be played as softly as a 'Stanwoodized' one can.

Derick

pique,

His initials are MM. Is this the tech you are thinking of?

Derick

Derick,

I'm glad to hear that I wasn't imagining things -- I was amazed at how softly I could play the Mason Hammond BB that had been Stanwoodized. I played another BB, this one without Stanwood, and I just couldn't play it as softly.

-- Grotius.

Grotius,

I've had the Stanwoodized piano about 6 weeks now, and I'm still discovering what the piano is capable of now that it wasn't capable of before. I hate to sound like the poster-boy for Stanwood, but it is *VERY* rare that I am completely satisfied with anything. This is one of those rare times.

Derick

Hi all,

Derick is right on about Stanwood.

I had my M&H BB upgraded w/Stanwood & Steinway hammers about 1.5 years ago, and it is everything Derick says---you can play beautifully at any volume, and completely control the piano---you forget about the mechanics and concentrate on the music.

There are 2 reasons I had the Stanwood upgrade done; first of all, my Renner blues were getting very "nasal" sounding and after having 3 techs try to voice the piano to my liking (they couldn't get the warm M&H tone I was looking for) the hammers had been beat up so bad they needed replacement. Secondly, the action on the BB was very heavy and the procedure that other techs were suggesting seemed primitive and I wasn't willing to take a chance on hacking up my keyboard w/weights etc. on a trial & error approach. I then did lots of research, talked to Del Fandrich and others asking about my 2 problems----bright Renner Blues & heavy action; all roads pointed to David Stanwood.

I called David up and we talked about my situation & he was intimately familiar with my problem since he owns a Mason & Hamlin BB himself. When he explained the system to me it all made so much sense I was ready to go. Fortunately I have a wonderful Stanwood tech near me (Dan Harteau)--he recomended Steinway D hammers & "full" Stanwood (with hepler springs) and he went to work... All I can say is, I'll never go back---The Stanwood sytem is a scientific approach to action touch-weight regulation and it works!

Why Mason & Hamlin uses the 'historic' scales and old-world building techniques and then puts Renner Blues on the pianos, I'll never understand. I know they've been approached about this by several people (including me), but they seem ignore the obvious-----maybe they're getting Renner hammers at a special discount!?! It doesn't make sense.

Grotius, you are taking a very logical approach to your piano buying. If you end up w/the Mason & Hamlin and go with Stanwood, you won't be sorry. I just wish M&H would wake up and fix these 2 annoying problems (especially the hammers)before they get to the customer, but what do I know?

Mat D.

hi, derick,

thanks for the reply. no, i'm thinking of mw.

my piano is new, with renner blues on it. i think there are some big voicing issues with those hammers. my tech really doesn't like the hammers (i suspect he is a ny steinway type of guy). they were heavily needled at the factory in an attempt to bash the harshness out of them, and he says this ruins them; the treble has never really been right. the tech says it will take two more voicing sessions, spaced a year apart. he's able to make them beautiful for about a day, and then they go back. my only other option, he says, is to replace the hammers--which he isn't necessarily recommending.

btw, he also doesn't think there is much difference between renner and abel hammers when it comes to this hardness problem. he says what is happening in the hammer industry is that the piano manufacturers are demanding a hammer that performs great right out of the box, that is pre-voiced. good voicers are a rare species, and the good ones are expensive. the hammer manufacturers are trying to meet this demand by compressing the wool so much, that it creates a very harsh and bright sound (which is evidently what most of the public likes).

i understand that ny steinway may be the only ones who aren't doing this and still have soft hammers. that is why new steinways that haven't been voiced sound so muffled. you have to juice the hammers to harden them, then needle them back up to just the right point to get the sound most people expect. dealers have to pay $500 a piano to have this done, if i remember right.

anyway, i am wondering how much it would cost just to replace a set of hammers (the action on my piano is fabulous and i honestly can't imagine being able to play any softer or with more control on any piano than i can play on mine). and if you did replace a set of hammers on a piano that was designed with renner blues, what would you use? i love the tone everywhere on my piano EXCEPT in octave 6.