I’m a pianist (not technician) seeking a model D or B Steinway to purchase and hoping I might ask your understanding and opinions about totally rebuilding a Steinway piano from case only . In this situation only the case remains to begin rebuilding a Steinway instrument . Can the tonal characteristics that produce a Steinway “Sound” be re-created? If this is possible what aspects of the rebuild contribute to making the finished piano recognizable as producing a Steinway sound? Does the wood of a vintage Steinway case contribute to producing a Steinway sound?
Thanks for any observations on this rebuild situation . Or if you know an article recommended for reading on this topic that would be wonderful also .

Coda9
Huge subject and there are many, many "opinions" about it.

I will just point out that Steinway has two factories, NY and Hamburg. Both factories use significantly different soundboards from one another. Both use significantly different hammers from one another. Both use different strings from one another. Yet both are Steinway's.

So there seems to be a range of approaches to get the Steinway sound.

I have heard many rebuilt Steinway's and some sound wonderful, others sound awful. Same can sometimes be said for new Steinway's.

I suggest you visit some rebuilders shops to sample their work. You would be welcome at mine located in the Seattle area.

OK hEd, I am more likely to search for a New York Steinway . And on the topic of soundboards , if a rebuild of a vintage Steinway needed a new soundboard , what would be the best choice to aim for the Steinway ”sound?” Would it be possible to form a soundboard outside of the Steinway factory in New York that could contribute to capturing the steinway character ?

How would you define the criteria when a vintage Steinway needs a new soundboard?

As I stated in my OP, I am a pianist not technician . So I am also appreciative and curious of a technician answering your question , OE1FEU.

I can only speak from my own experience and there are more variants in soundboard crafting than I could evaluate in a lifetime at the rate I work.

I have taken other brands of pianos and installed my standard NY Steinway style belly in them and succeeded in importing some of the tonal characteristics recognized as the "Steinway" sound. This tells me something about how significant the style of a "Belly", (The soundboard making process is called "Bellying" because when you glue the ribs and bridges on the flat panel it crowns up to an arched structure), is to the tonal signature.

I have heard rebuilt Steinways that use a significantly differing belly procedure from mine that still retain the tone signature and I have heard ones that don't retain it. So there is a point where one can depart to far from the "proper" Belly procedure to get the desired result.

The single most important facet of rebuilding pianos is the tone regulation process of the action. This will do more to determine the success or failure of a rebuild than soundboard work, but the soundboard is still very significant.

Many rebuilders fail or struggle with mastering tone regulation and this can color how a layperson would judge their work overall.

Coda9,
Can you describe what the Steinway sound is?
-chris

The Steinway sound in the male voice range is reminiscent of the finest operatic voices.

Hmmmmm Chris asked what is the Steinway sound ? Some people regard the Steinway sound as fat .... but that seems an oversimplification yet certainly a general impression . I live on the Pacific coast and when I stand on the shore looking out at the expanse of the pacific ocean that reminds me of sound potential of bass tone in the Steinway instrument—- expansive. Treble reminds me of clear bell-like singing voice and mid range blends the entire keyboard tonally. I value the Steinway soound for it’s amazing flexibility in playing very different sound affects throughout piano literature Bach to Bartok..
Last fall I had an opportunity to practice Bosendorfer 200, 1980’s piano for five days and felt it’s immaculate functioning action . But the three distinct ranges were a feature I needed more time to acquire familiarity with .

Steinway sound is different per piano produced by Steinway. I don't know that any two Steinways produce the same sound really. Indeed, they have made it a point over the years to advertise their instruments as each having their own unique character.
Besides that, the final "sound" (tonal characteristics) on any one S&S is even more a matter of voicing performed by the tech, after it leaves the mfg...which varies widely. Voicing is basically to suit each artist's preferences (to-each-their-own basis).
I have worked on a S&S that has a wonderfully full bass and a beautifully clear treble (what I consider "an excellent Steinway sound"), and I have worked on a S&S that has developed such bright tone that it is nearly "Asian" in character (almost Yamaha-like)- what I consider "a lousy Steinway sound" LOL.
So, I would point out that it would be a rather difficult task for any tech to replicate a S&S sound simply according to someone stating that they wish to have "the Steinway sound" replicated.
In the end- good results are good results: which comes from good skilled craftsmanship and the craftsman caring to produce quality results.
I suppose one could answer (as S&S' sales department would) that it is a true S&S sound when all the parts are S&S, and the scaling is S&S.
Other than that, technically I suppose, it would be an adapted S&S sound (which could indeed turn out to be better in some cases).

Right, so only a S&S with S&S hammers and a S&S action is a real piano.

Oh, wait.

Mr. Rick Parks brought out 2 topics of rebuilding a Steinway piano from case only that I would value hearing from others comment about — steinway action parts and Steinway scaling . Aren’t these essential in re-creating the Steinway “sound effect”? And I’m not yet clear about how important is a Steinway soundboard for contributing to the finished Steinway sound tonal .characteristics ..... of course voicing is hugely influential in the finished tonal impression . But surely using Steinway components and scaling are essential ....?

Greetings,
I think the scale is important. It has measurable harmonic character. The other parts are not so essential or standard, as Steinway has changed leverage and hammer design through the years. Current hammers are NOT the same as pre-war hammers, nor knuckle ratios.
You can put any kind of tire on a Corvette and it is still a Corvette. If you want to put a Steinway in a museum as an authentic piece of musical equipment, it needs to be all Steinway, as provenance matters more than performance. However, if you want to be true to the original design, you will often need to get after-market parts to do it. So, today, we have a choice between maximizing authenticity or performance.
Regards,

Don't understand what your point is... Never said, nor implied that it was not therefore a real piano. Read the whole post, please.

I said that one side's viewpoint is that it is only a TRUE S&S when ALL parts are S&S- otherwise it is altered from that of what S&S designated it to be as a S&S... It is definitely still a piano (perhaps even better playing than before?).
This S&S 'D' we are talking about here, for an example- it now has WNG parts on the action (which I suspect are a wrong length in hammer shanks- causing deadness of tone)...When the time comes to sell it, even with the tone issue solved, the selection of parts will in fact be a factor in realization of pricing on the market- as it would NOT be considered a TRUE S&S for sales purposes in the special clique that is S&S clientele. Just the way it is (from their viewpoint)- whether we like it or not, it is true. And I personally see it as fair enough when one considers it all.
It's just as any other valued item really (right down to baseball cards)- scrupulous originality is important in that particular area of claim.

Now, whether a S&S instrument is better or worse after someone replaces parts with non S&S, is I suppose a completely separate discussion-- a matter of skill level of craftsman, and even (quite often) based on opinion of "better"/"worse".
This was my only point on that.



Exactly, yet Corvettes are known for their POWER and SPEED...if I put some cheap no-tread tires on that vehicle, you'll have a Corvette that is now known for its stationary noise as it spins its wheels on the road and goes nowhere. It might look and sound like a Corvette, but it certainly does not produce the results of a TRUE Corvette! So, it is (technically) 'an altered Corvette'.
I know, I know - tires are a very small thing, and silly to use for this particular comparison to an actual ACTION for a grand piano.
It SHOULD BE more a comparison of, "If you put new generic engine components as replacement parts into the Corvette engine- is it still a Corvette?" - the answer from the Corvette people will be unanimous to that!
The name still might say Corvette- but go try to sell it to someone in the Corvette clique. They are going to devalue it immediately when they learn what you did. Again, whether we like it or not, this is the world we live in.

Same thing with a tier 1 piano- the MFG and their adoring followers are not going to consider it the way you or I might like to think of the realities of all the work, craftsmanship, and time that we put into it.
THIS would be why we (as techs) need to have our minds set ahead of time- that is, before starting any "restoration" of such a piano- what we wish to accomplish as an end-product.

* Do you wish to RESTORE it to 100% S&S? - That would require S&S parts ONLY. (as this topic is about restoring S&S sound- I would think this would be the route one would think necessary to take).

* Do you wish to simply Rebuild it into a VERY NICE, High-performance instrument that is based on S&S string scale and action geometry- advertise it as a S&S with "_____" Part Replacements? - Then this path does not require one to be so bound by those "stringent" restraints in choosing parts.----- always be honest and upfront with the adaptations made, and let the opinions of the free market decide whether they consider it a S&S or not.

Whichever path, one should understand the options that are involved (limitation involved in choice 1), and then realize ahead of time that the path chosen COULD very much affect the end-product's market value (but then again, maybe not?).



This would be a matter of opinion in the tech field...BUT, once again the reality of the market world is a matter of, "What did you do to this S&S D? You put a "___" soundboard into it?!?!?!".
You very well might get a WONDERFUL deep rich tone and volume.
The question of whether it is a TRUE Steinway Sound is one that I, in all honesty, would have to answer with an asterisk for the record-book. I know that I could not profess it to be 100% S&S.

I think this has been a very LONG way to answer, "I don't know that your questions CAN be answered". LOL

Rick Parks,
You have bought into "magical sauce thinking". Which Steinway is the "real" Steinway, Hamburg or NY?

They both have significantly different soundboards, hammers, keys, and many times strings.

If there is more than one way to build a Steinway, why isn't my way better? And if my customer wants a better Steinway, why shouldn't I be able to provide that? And if my customer wants the original fallboard decal, what right does Steinway have to take decals off the market and demand that the piano be made like the new ones to be "authentic" and be "rewarded' with a new style decal only? This is stealing from Steinway owners. This is blatant Trade Restraint.

I think you know most buyers of pianos care most about how it feels and plays. They also want to be assured it will endure. Steinway is attempting to gain a monopoly over all Steinway's ever made to determine if they are "authentic" enough to be sold as Steinway's. And with the reduction of action leverage implemented first in Hamburg and later in NY, I maintain recent factory original Steinway's are not "authentic". If a buyer wants the finest performing Steinway action you must rework the newer ones to put the leverage back in and make the hammers much lighter. This can't be done buying parts from Steinway.

[quote=Rick_Parks]
Exactly, yet Corvettes are known for their POWER and SPEED...if I put some cheap no-tread tires on that vehicle, you'll have a Corvette that is now known for its stationary noise as it spins its wheels on the road and goes nowhere. It might look and sound like a Corvette, but it certainly does not produce the results of a TRUE Corvette! So, it is (technically) 'an altered Corvette'.
I know, I know - tires are a very small thing, and silly to use for this particular comparison to an actual ACTION for a grand piano.
It SHOULD BE more a comparison of, "If you put new generic engine components as replacement parts into the Corvette engine- is it still a Corvette?" - the answer from the Corvette people will be unanimous to that!
The name still might say Corvette- but go try to sell it to someone in the Corvette clique. They are going to devalue it immediately when they learn what you did. Again, whether we like it or not, this is the world we live in. [quote=Rick_Parks]


Greetings
Perhaps it is more illustrative to ask how many high level rebuilders use the original bass string supplier to keep their Steinway remanufacturing all original. Or, can you call a 1908 Steinway authentic if we put Steinway's 2019 hammers in it? Just because the maker's name is on the box doesn't mean that the piano is closer to "original" than if one uses a Ronsen Weikert set that is much more similar to the original hammers.


If we are talking about museum pieces vs performance, a choice has to be made, as you will find people racing Corvettes don't usually use all stock parts. And, will that Corvette perform better with the 1965 tire technology under it, or something more modern?

Choices that improve performance are something that will cost the manufacturers, so the vested interest is as much a part of the spiel as anything else.
regards,

@Rick_Parks I just wanted to point out that S&S is reliant on external suppliers for many parts, including hammers, actions, strings, wood, keyboard. Add to that that Hamburg and NY Steinways are distinctly different in their choice of suppliers and even design, it's not helpful to talk about "all the parts from S&S" when critical parts of their products are not manufactured by S&S themselves.

In that sense you get a higher consistency when buying a Yamaha or Bechstein, because those two have a disctinctly higher level of inhouse production of critical parts.

Asserting that " that it is a true S&S sound when all the parts are S&S, and the scaling is S&S." just doesn't make sense when parts are not manufactured inhouse by S&S but by Kluge, Rösöau, Ronsen, Abel, Renner, just to mention a few external suppiers.

And a 1975 Teflon Steinway is a true S&S as well.

My original query was asking how to rebuild not restore necessarily a Steinway model D with only a case to begin work . It seems a daunting Challenge and I was not expecting to debate whether the choice of parts be authentic original Steinway parts so that the finished product could be called 100% rebuilt with Steinway parts . Originally I was most concerned that the final sound of this instrument would be of the Steinway tonal. character . ( personally I prefer New York Steinway ). So let me see if I’ve understood from everyone’s discussion , what the order of importance is when assessing which components have more influence towards the final Tonal Character of a rebuilt Steinway .
1. Scaling designated by Steinway
2. Voicing — is this skill equally critical as using Steinway scaling?
3. Soundboard—to be or not to be Steinway ???
4. Supplier(s) of strings and moving parts

May I ask MrEd Foote about bass strig reference: “Perhaps it is more illustrative to ask how many high level rebuilders use the original bass string supplier to keep their Steinway remanufacturing all original.”
As I am especially seeking a quality of bass tone, could I please ask for a bit more filling out of information about what are considered original bass string suppliers ? With this bass strings give an exceptional quality of sound ?

I have an incomplete memory of reading another thread similar to this with someone naming a true restoration project on the east coast of a very special Steinway piano with a name , maybe something like Oak Ridge Steinway Or Dunbridge Steinway . In this project they actually examined qualities of the instrument’s tonal personality before beginning restoration and tried to rebuild using perhaps historically correct styles of parts Like prewar hammers .

Greetings,
As I understand it, there is only one 'original' bass string supplier. Mapes bass strings have been used in all New York Steinways for decades. I have had numerous top rated restorers tell me that they have found better quality from other, 'aftermarket' string makers. Some of those I have tried and found wanting, but at present, JD Grandt has provided me with the best strings I have used.
regards,

LOL
Now Yamaha is "more consistent" than S&S? --- Somebody needs to tell the market and all those concert pianists!

And, "Which S&S is the true S&S, NY or Hamburg?"--- umm both are S&S. At least last I knew they were designed and built BY S&S.

I am not going to get into useless debates with a bunch of techs that are going off on S&S because they hold a grudge against their business practices. Practices of which I do not exactly appreciate either, BUT, I am not going to change the reality of things over my being upset over their deeds!



One may do whatever they wish with a S&S piano in rebuilding/restoration, and claim whatever they wish to claim. I am not going to be the one to tell you not to do that-this-or the other... I am only pointing out the reality of market viewpoints out there- again, whether you like it or not. Others do not share your viewpoints on these matters, and unfortunately it is those 'others' who are shaping the market out there.

As for the rest of this conversation, I don't care to get involved in misinformation and angry attitudes directed toward a particular MFG.

The reality of the real piano marketplace is that the most experienced and informed buyers of fine grands seek out well done rebuilt grands. Makers of new pianos have done very little to upgrade their designs. There are more than a few rebuilders who are the ones producing state of the art instruments.

It behooves us a Technicians to inform the public. We should be the ones representing pianists interests. Pianists need someone to call the piano sales-people out on their bullshit.

Coda9, perhaps you got more replies than you were anticipating Allow me to give you my perspective as a pianist.

I didn’t want to sell my own Steinway because it opened my eyes to the Steinway sound. I owned it for about 15 years. But about 6 months ago I had the opportunity to buy a Mason & Hamlin BB and took the risk—I had to sell my Steinway to buy it. I thought I’d miss the Steinway sound but after I worked on my BB I actually came to like it more. I love nice Steinway pianos, and the prettiest piano I’ve ever heard was a model D, but they’re not all like that.

The point is that I’d suggest you focus your energy on finding a piano you love. Even if you’re certain you want a Steinway D or B, not all Steinway’s are going to have the tonal character you are looking for. If you find a rebuilt Steinway B that doesn’t sound like a Steinway (because it isn’t) but is awesome then who cares?

I use non-Steinway parts in Steinway pianos since I don’t think all their parts are the best or cost effective. And personally I’m also fine with Steinway’s recent antics since I feel like they’re entitled to represent their name however they want, good or bad. Don’t get too hung up on all-Steinway parts unless you’re more concerned about resale value than performance.

Bechstein completely redesigned their concert series, i.e. 212, 234 and 282 around 2000 and later completely redesigned the plate for the D-model about 10 years ago. Different from traditional design with agraffe stringing, they now feature a capo bar and duplex scale. Yamaha's CFX is a completely new design as the successor of the CFIIIS. The Bösendorfer VC series is also a complete redesign compared to the 275 and Imperial series. Feurich's latest production lines both in grands and uprights are completely new designs. The latest Shigeru Kawai concert grands are also completely different from the EX model.

What rebuilders are there that actually produce state of the art instruments that aren't just miniscule adaptations of existing instruments?

I have not had time to read this thread in its entirety, however I wanted to comment briefly on the "scaling" issue.

I recently restrung a 1980's B in which the factory printed scale on the plate deviated significantly from Steinway's "standard" B scale that they use now, and have published for decades as "the scale" for the B. When I called to discuss the matter with David Kirkland in the service dept he admitted that although the bridge pattern has never changed, "there a few alternative scales out there" (meaning straight from the factory). He did not tell me what to do, just gave me the info.

So the question is: What would be the TRUE Steinway scale for this piano...the one printed on the plate and used from the factory, or the one they use now, and have published in their technical info as THE B scale?

I'm not going to tell what I did, but I will welcome learned comments on the matter.

Pwg

OE1FEU,
Rebuilders who know how to use Hybrid Wire Scales. Rebuilders who license the Fully Tempered Duplex Scale technology. Rebuilders who utilize LightHammer Tone regulation. Rebuilders who use W,N&G composite action parts.
Rebuilders who understand how Longitudinal modes create false beats in Transverse modes. Rebuilders who configure agraffes and V-bars to optimize pivot termination principles. That's who.

I think what perhaps OE1FEU is meaning is that these differences appear to be minuscule.

For instance, I suspect if you blind-tested two pianos of equal quality which were serviced to the highest degree possible and one of them reduced or eliminated the occasional false beat and the occasional ringing bass string, you wouldn’t get a reliable consensus among professional pianists as to which one is better.

We don’t have an industry problem of chronically unsatisfied professional pianists fretting over being forced to play ‘standard’ Steinways when they perform, or students in All-Steinway schools quietly suffering in silence. Many pianists truly enjoy playing Steinway pianos beyond it being explained away as them being simply ignorant of what might be better. I remember playing on a Fazioli at a competition that was in tip top condition, and I would have happily swapped it for a good (not even great) Steinway.

So from that perspective, many improvements do appear to be minuscule when you consider the bigger picture. I think the aspects which matter most matter quite a bit more than smaller matters.

This thread has been immensely fascinating and helpful to me I really value everyone’s different opinions and perspectives and experiences One last topic I’d like to put on the table for comment — the CASE.
Would the wood of the Steinway case from 1900 to 1950 have a better quality that could contribute, with the soundboard, to tone production ?

All cases on pianos are built to contribute to the sound...
A S&S case will be designed by S&S to do just this. S&S has done a superb job of wood selection over the years.
In my opinion, the further you go back in piano history- the more attention was paid to the details of making the instrument oh the highest quality-- the attitudes of MFG's on this have changed drastically over the past 50 years.
There are also those who would point out that, the further back you go the MFG's had access to the better 'old-growth' woods-- meaning better quality woods were available back then, and this would have given the older pianos an advantage in this regard...
But, really, one can only put so much stock in the woods used for a case as a contributing factor to the sound of the instrument. There are many of the other, much more important, aspects that factor in the overall tone and character of the instrument.

I would think that the fact that you're working on a D has its advantages in all of these regards.

Personally, I think you can get the Steinway sound put of just about any Steinway case (as long as it is still in sound condition). All it takes is knowledgeable piano building and attention to detail. It doesn't have to be old. Case making is one place where Steinway still does exactly the same as before (except for glue) AFAIK.

Pwg

Shall we debate the consistency of old glue vs new glue? Just teasing.


Edit: Just teasing.... Peter, wouldn't this be where the 'old-growth' wood factor would make a difference? The wood from back in the day was from higher quality trees.

The case is more important as a contributor to the sound of the piano than you would at first think. It gives the piano its timbre. I experienced this just recently. I just rebuilt two pianos side by side. A Steinway S, and a Vose and Sons. They were pretty identical except the Vose had a wider tail, and the rim of the Steinway was twice as thick as the Vose. I rebuilt both pianos exactly the same- Wood species of the soundboard, same process ( infact the boards were in the oven at the same time and installed the same day). Same hammers, and same strings. The Steinway sounded great with little effort. But, the Vose is causing me all kinds of tonal problem. I have spent twice as long on the voicing to blend the tone. All i can say is something was different, and I believe it was the rim differences.
-chris

Those rebuilders are operating in a very narrow niche that rarely has any relevance in today's concert halls. The redesigns I was talking about are the opposite: They comprise the latest models of premium piano makers and it is those instruments that you can and will find in concert halls that are happy to buy more than one Steinway for their stage. A pianist coming to Vienna will be presented with his choice and preference for a certain brand and may even have the luxury of choosing between more than just one Bösendorfer or Steinway. And when a pisnist wants to play on a Yamaha, he will get a superb CFX from a rental fleet of a local dealer and same goes for a possible choice of Bechsteins or Shigeru Kawais. It will also come with a technician who is intimately familiar with the unique qualities of any of those pianos.

The niche products you mention, however, have no relevance for pianists, most of whom will rarely even have heard of those improvements. This may be frustrating from your point of view, but the fact is that even if you are offered pianos with those redesigns, rarely will those pianos come with a competent pian technician who knows how to tune, regulate and voice those instruments. Case in point: Can you show any decent recording with any of those technologies in circulation?

To the OP Coda9: I am late to this thread, but I am offering my perspective as a customer (amateur pianist), not technician, of currently owning two Steinways. Neither of them is a Model D, by the way.

One is a NY "original", bought new (from dealer's perspective) in 2015, made in late 2013, Model A with, of course, all original parts.

The other is a Hamburg Model B made in 1969, and recently (2017) rebuilt by PianoCraft in Maryland, with new action, strings, and hammers. The action and hammers are Renner with Hamburg Steinway specs, so these are the ones Hamburg factory uses too. I know the strings are from a Canadian supplier (I don't know the name). All others, including soundboard, keys, case, etc. are original.

Sitting at the respective bench and playing either one, they sound very different. At the audience site (4 feet or more away), the difference is less. At this point of ownership, I have been quite familiar with their tonal characteristics, but when my wife plays them (without me actually seeing which one she uses), I would sometimes have a hard time telling which one she is using.

Do they have a characteristic "Steinway" sound? Probably since the similarity. But they can be quite different from a pianist's perspective.

Oh Rick...what am I going to do with you? 🤣😢😂😨😊

Actually Steinway has long maintained that their unique (almost) method of unitized inner and outer laminated maple rim construction (with pinblock) is one of the, if not THE, primary factors in creating their signature sound.

I think that any difference in adhesives is negligible, considering the fact that Steinway is still capable of turning out a first class product and the differences between the great and the non-great have little or nothing to do with the case. The differences are elsewhere IMO.

Interesting results, Chris.

Pwg

I was only teasing about the glue... But, don't you think that there has to be a difference in the woods used in today's pianos? Back then there was ample supply of some very nice woods, that simply are not available anymore. The old trees that were harvested are all gone for the most part, and much prized and very much protected as for those remaining. I do think there must be some quality loss in this to be factored in to end-product of S&S sound.

Greetings,

I question whether the impedance is identical when multiple laminations are joined with hide glue vs a thermoplastic glue that is set with microwaves. The resonance of the case is certainly a component of the sound, as it is entrained along with the ribs, soundboard, stretcher, pin-block, and belly-rail. Any time energy changes mediums, it loses something i.e. waves traveling through the case have to navigate quite a few boundary issues, and I don't know of another adhesive as acoustically transparent as hide glue.

The integrity of the rim is the same as with high quality bass drums; the wood and hardness make differences that drummers distinguish. I am not sure about the glues, as I am not a scientist, but I have been pushing chisels through pianos for 40 years, and from bridges to beams, the old piano wood is harder. The harder wood will absorb less energy, (it dampens less), so there is a plausible reason an older piano will have a different sound, all other things being equal, (scale, hammers, etc).
Regards,

Interesting information, Ed. Thanks.
I was not going to go as far as to debate the glue As for the older woods- we know guitar makers try to acquire 'old wood' for the best results, do they not. The best 'sound' is created through the best materials. So all of this makes perfect sense.

The soundboard in a piano is under a heavy load and for a long time. Thus the wood fibers fatigue due to the prolonged stresses. Not the case with guitars and violins. So what was once the best material is no longer so. New wood is.
-chris

Do you have any scientific reference for this assertion?

And new wood: As a small shop, how can you guarantee consistent quality and sourcing if you don't have the means to process and store a large amount of uniform wood?

I am afraid I am not understanding your point...If you are meaning between guitar and piano- I understand the stress loads are different, as anyone would. Yet, we use a much thicker wood laminate (sometimes solid) on the rims of the piano. The stress load was the same as it is now on the S&S D during the time that I am referring to, as I am merely speaking of pre-1950's (over-strung A-440 S&S D is the immediate reference).
I do think there is credence to the idea that the woods used today, from such a regulated and closely scrutinized availability is as good as it was back then. But, whatever- it is simply my opinion after all, I suppose.
But, I do think the older pianos had a nicer overall tone built into them--- overall (compared to today).

EDIT: "I do think there is credence to the idea that the woods used today....is as good as it was back then" SHOULD BE "...is NOT as good as it was back then"
Sheesh... Need another cup of coffee.

OE1FEU,
"Large amount of uniform wood"

Some would see this phrase as an oxymoron.

I rebuilt a 1975 (or so), 7'3" (or so), Kawai grand about 20 years ago that serves as a pretty good A to B comparison regarding the importance of rim wood.

Customer wanted the nasal tone gone and asked me to install my "Steinway" style board. Piano has 26 bass. I made new vertically laminated bridges, and converted highest five, (or so), wound bichords to trichord. And rebuilt action.

The piano lost all that nasal tone and sounded like a blend of Chickering and Steinway tone.

Rim is laminated luan "mahogany". Too soft in my opinion for the plate rim screws to really hold as strong as one might wish. Had to be very careful with tearouts during teardown. But I came away thinking it made no difference in the tone.

Also consider Aeolian era M&H had poplar and mahogany rims. I have rebuilt several of those and they still sound like the old maple rimmed ones.

I agree with Ed on the fact that the species of the wood that the rim is made of doesn't effect the tone too much. What does make a difference (as in my Vose and Steinway comparison) is the mass difference, that has a great influence.

OE1FEU ,

With regards to pianos, i think its a myth that the wood a hundred years ago is better than the wood available today.
Two points to consider:
1) Wood is Graded. Soundboard quality wood (A Grade) is still available and plentiful. I believe there are 4 Grades of A e.g. A, AA, AAA, AAAA
2) The species itself doesn't matter as much as the craftsmanship does. I have made soundboards out of other species. In my early days, I wanted to perfect my soundboard method and didn't want to waste my spruce. So I went to home depot and got some Douglas Fir and installed a soundboard in a Large Upright using the DF. It had an incredible tone. Just a slightly darker Timbre. No one would know if I didn't tell them. So keep this between me and you.
-chris

In my 55 years of being a piano rebuilder and tuner, the closest approach to the "true Steinway tone," whatever that may be, is embodied in the rebuilds that emanate from the AC Pianocraft facility in Long Island City, New York.

AC is run by Alex Kostakis, second generation owner. Started in 1962 by five former Steinway factory employees, Alex has refined the art and craft of restoring "golden age" and later Steinways to the pre-modern idea of what a Steinway should sound and feel like. Whenever I have the opportunity to tune one of AC's rebuilds, it's always a pleasure to experience the tone and ease of tuning and voicing.

There's no need to juice up the hammers to get tone, or make excuses to the client for lack of sustain. Even in a style S that I recently tuned had a long, remarkably rich sound, full of complex overtones. A little work with the voicing needles was all that was needed to bring out the full sound.

Does anyone know for a fact whether Steinway finger-joints their case laminations to achieve the 22 feet necessary for a D rim? Or are they able to buy and machine it that long in one piece? I know Mason & Hamlin does because I've seen it. Steinway never shows a closeup of those laminations in any of their videos.

In also believe that part of the complex Steinway sound is due to that laminated bridge as opposed to a solid bridge in many Asian pianos.

Pwg

Yes Peter, Steinway has a cool, special machine that finger joints both butt ends of 2 lengths of rim lamination simultaneously, then it spreads glue on the joint, moves the two ends perfectly together, and then heats the joint to cure it in about a minute. This makes laminations long enough to form rims.

And some would not, including those with a deep knowledge of sustainability in foresting.

[url=https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.waldwissen.net/waldwirtschaft/holz/verarbeitung/wsl_klangholz/wsl_klangholz_originalartikel.pdf&prev=search][/url]