Pianotech

Is humidity unusually high?  Any variance in tone with changes in humidity?

My first suspicion is that you have MASSIVE downbearing, compressing the board to the point of convulsion. 

If the crown in the soundboard is S-curved (less under the bridge and more towards the bass primarily) this is circumstantial evidence in that direction. If there is also unusual tuning instability that is another indicator. If the hammers are very hard (rock like) that is a third nail in the coffin. 

I maintain it is impossible to get a true DB reading on a strung piano. It can be deceptive.

Steinways from that time period are famous for this problem. The only way to know absolutely for sure is to drop the tension and re-measure. If my diagnosis turns out to be true, all you need to do is fix the DB and things will come alive. If I'm wrong...well...that's life. 😃 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Is humidity unusually high?  Any variance in tone with changes in humidity?

Is humidity unusually high?  Any variance in tone with changes in humidity?

Joe, 

I agree with Wim, the biggest weakness of the Steinway is the treble section. Careful juicing may be necessary, Good Luck!

Michael

Joe, 

I agree with Wim, the biggest weakness of the Steinway is the treble section. Careful juicing may be necessary, Good Luck!

Michael

I've heard of the problem Peter is saying, which leads me to two questions. One, has the customer complained about the lack of sustain? Or is this your own observations and you want to have a solution for the customer?   The other question, which is directed at Peter and others on this list. If this is an impedance problem, is there a "quick fix"? Or will this require a new soundboard, etc.? Which leads me to the next question, what is the best way to approach the customer with this? 

Wim

I've heard of the problem Peter is saying, which leads me to two questions. One, has the customer complained about the lack of sustain? Or is this your own observations and you want to have a solution for the customer?   The other question, which is directed at Peter and others on this list. If this is an impedance problem, is there a "quick fix"? Or will this require a new soundboard, etc.? Which leads me to the next question, what is the best way to approach the customer with this? 

Wim

If the sustain is a hammer related problem, you would want to soften the shoulders, not harden them further.

 If its a soundboard problem diagnoses is trickier than you would think. A recent case of mine was that a Steinway L came in for rebuilding. The owner wanted a new board but to me the piano sounded fine. I measured the downbearing and it was excessive, the crown was minimal while strung. When i removed the strings the crown remained low (i was expecting some recoil because of the high bearing). I did a Chladni test and the sand exited the board rapidly. Even though the board had nice resonance, the low next to zero crown convinced the customer to replace. If it had recoiled back i would have suggested the board stay.

A very nice improvement to the Steinway L soundboard that i am doing when i replace, is to put Spruce for the top four ribs and then switch to Sugar or EW pine for the rest. I add a sustain bar for added strength on the longer ribs, and i crown a tad higher than Steinway. All these improvements add strength and no weight. Plus if you look how Steinway does their downbearing, no wonder its high. Not as high as a Samick i'm rebuilding which has the record so far with a  7 degree downbearing!!

-chris

-chris

I've heard of the problem Peter is saying, which leads me to two questions. One, has the customer complained about the lack of sustain? Or is this your own observations and you want to have a solution for the customer?   The other question, which is directed at Peter and others on this list. If this is an impedance problem, is there a "quick fix"? Or will this require a new soundboard, etc.? Which leads me to the next question, what is the best way to approach the customer with this? 

Wim

Chris C wrote: "I add a sustain bar for added strength on the longer ribs..."

What is a sustain bar?

If the sustain is a hammer related problem, you would want to soften the shoulders, not harden them further.

 If its a soundboard problem diagnoses is trickier than you would think. A recent case of mine was that a Steinway L came in for rebuilding. The owner wanted a new board but to me the piano sounded fine. I measured the downbearing and it was excessive, the crown was minimal while strung. When i removed the strings the crown remained low (i was expecting some recoil because of the high bearing). I did a Chladni test and the sand exited the board rapidly. Even though the board had nice resonance, the low next to zero crown convinced the customer to replace. If it had recoiled back i would have suggested the board stay.

A very nice improvement to the Steinway L soundboard that i am doing when i replace, is to put Spruce for the top four ribs and then switch to Sugar or EW pine for the rest. I add a sustain bar for added strength on the longer ribs, and i crown a tad higher than Steinway. All these improvements add strength and no weight. Plus if you look how Steinway does their downbearing, no wonder its high. Not as high as a Samick i'm rebuilding which has the record so far with a  7 degree downbearing!!

-chris

-chris

I've heard of the problem Peter is saying, which leads me to two questions. One, has the customer complained about the lack of sustain? Or is this your own observations and you want to have a solution for the customer?   The other question, which is directed at Peter and others on this list. If this is an impedance problem, is there a "quick fix"? Or will this require a new soundboard, etc.? Which leads me to the next question, what is the best way to approach the customer with this? 

Wim

The Sustain Bar was invented in 1878 by CFT Steinway. Although first designed as a top and bottom metal device, more common is the simple one sided wood strip. I've seen it on other pianos and first saw it on a MH BB. Steinway does not use it on all models which i believe is a mistake. It allows more crown to develop in the often flat corner and the use of all soundboard area eliminating the need for a cut off bar. It hasn't been well understood, so its use has not been adopted. An underrated invention.

-chris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrbUo_fRqfA

Chris C wrote: "I add a sustain bar for added strength on the longer ribs..."

What is a sustain bar?

If the sustain is a hammer related problem, you would want to soften the shoulders, not harden them further.

 If its a soundboard problem diagnoses is trickier than you would think. A recent case of mine was that a Steinway L came in for rebuilding. The owner wanted a new board but to me the piano sounded fine. I measured the downbearing and it was excessive, the crown was minimal while strung. When i removed the strings the crown remained low (i was expecting some recoil because of the high bearing). I did a Chladni test and the sand exited the board rapidly. Even though the board had nice resonance, the low next to zero crown convinced the customer to replace. If it had recoiled back i would have suggested the board stay.

A very nice improvement to the Steinway L soundboard that i am doing when i replace, is to put Spruce for the top four ribs and then switch to Sugar or EW pine for the rest. I add a sustain bar for added strength on the longer ribs, and i crown a tad higher than Steinway. All these improvements add strength and no weight. Plus if you look how Steinway does their downbearing, no wonder its high. Not as high as a Samick i'm rebuilding which has the record so far with a  7 degree downbearing!!

-chris

-chris

I've heard of the problem Peter is saying, which leads me to two questions. One, has the customer complained about the lack of sustain? Or is this your own observations and you want to have a solution for the customer?   The other question, which is directed at Peter and others on this list. If this is an impedance problem, is there a "quick fix"? Or will this require a new soundboard, etc.? Which leads me to the next question, what is the best way to approach the customer with this? 

Wim

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

Joe,

So thr fact that the pluck test matches the hammer strike test is another important piece of info telling you it ain't just the hammers. 

If you have the entire symptom set that I outlined (the hard hammers are a last ditch effort to get ANYTHING out of the piano), then I would bet my life on excessive DB. You'll need to take the tension down entirely and watch what happens to the board. Then check actual string deflection. I would bet on seeing .250" or more in the center. (I learned from Peter Mohr that the bellymen were allowed .250" max and be acceptable, but their procedure often ended up putting more on. 

If you find this situation you'll have to decide whether to: 1) Shim the aliquots with fiberboard till DB is reasonable, or 2) It's  better to completely restring if the problem goes all the way to the bottom. 

I began to recognize this symptom set in the 80's simply by chance and repeated repair. The bummer is that I can't PROVE it without dismantling the piano. I can only point to the SET of symptoms pointing in that direction...as well as the known tendencies of a particular manufacturer. 

Basically the strings are acting as a clamp preventing the board from vibrating. You need to establish a good working relationship between crown and DB so they complement each other and work together in happiness and harmony. Right now the strings are the master and the board is the oppressed slave. They need to become equal partners. Then they can make music together. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

Joe,

So thr fact that the pluck test matches the hammer strike test is another important piece of info telling you it ain't just the hammers. 

If you have the entire symptom set that I outlined (the hard hammers are a last ditch effort to get ANYTHING out of the piano), then I would bet my life on excessive DB. You'll need to take the tension down entirely and watch what happens to the board. Then check actual string deflection. I would bet on seeing .250" or more in the center. (I learned from Peter Mohr that the bellymen were allowed .250" max and be acceptable, but their procedure often ended up putting more on. 

If you find this situation you'll have to decide whether to: 1) Shim the aliquots with fiberboard till DB is reasonable, or 2) It's  better to completely restring if the problem goes all the way to the bottom. 

I began to recognize this symptom set in the 80's simply by chance and repeated repair. The bummer is that I can't PROVE it without dismantling the piano. I can only point to the SET of symptoms pointing in that direction...as well as the known tendencies of a particular manufacturer. 

Basically the strings are acting as a clamp preventing the board from vibrating. You need to establish a good working relationship between crown and DB so they complement each other and work together in happiness and harmony. Right now the strings are the master and the board is the oppressed slave. They need to become equal partners. Then they can make music together. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

Joe,

The VERY FIRST time I detected this situation I believed that the board was toast, as it was totally flat (under the bridge) leading me in the direction of "lost its crown...needs replacement". 

Long story short...the piano (Sty B) was sold wholesale to a rebuilder as a basket case. Well, he called me up a couple months later and said: " there was nothing wrong with that piano...it simply had so much downbearing that it was squashed the board flat. I fixed it by shimming the aliquots, put the strings back on and it's fantastic!"

Again...that was my FIRST encounter with this. Subsequently I have seen it numerous times. 

It has been an accumulation if data leading me here. It has also lead me to the conclusion that you CANNOT accurately assess the crown/downbearing situation in a strung state. There are too many unknown and undeterminable factors to ACCURATELY do it. You must remove all the tension and THEN you will see what's going on. I don't care what method you think you have or what latest and greatest tool you use, it's not going to tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The only way to get that is to remove the tension. 

And you don't have to worry about front bearing vs rear bearing. Just look at net bearing. 

If they want to solve the problem you have to do this. You're NOT going to find a perfect pristine situation. Whatever you find will need to be addressed. This is why doctors sometimes have to do exploratory surgery because the ONLY way to know for sure what's going on is to get in there and see it. Then they find the problem and fix it while they're in there. 

Keep us posted 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Joe,

So thr fact that the pluck test matches the hammer strike test is another important piece of info telling you it ain't just the hammers. 

If you have the entire symptom set that I outlined (the hard hammers are a last ditch effort to get ANYTHING out of the piano), then I would bet my life on excessive DB. You'll need to take the tension down entirely and watch what happens to the board. Then check actual string deflection. I would bet on seeing .250" or more in the center. (I learned from Peter Mohr that the bellymen were allowed .250" max and be acceptable, but their procedure often ended up putting more on. 

If you find this situation you'll have to decide whether to: 1) Shim the aliquots with fiberboard till DB is reasonable, or 2) It's  better to completely restring if the problem goes all the way to the bottom. 

I began to recognize this symptom set in the 80's simply by chance and repeated repair. The bummer is that I can't PROVE it without dismantling the piano. I can only point to the SET of symptoms pointing in that direction...as well as the known tendencies of a particular manufacturer. 

Basically the strings are acting as a clamp preventing the board from vibrating. You need to establish a good working relationship between crown and DB so they complement each other and work together in happiness and harmony. Right now the strings are the master and the board is the oppressed slave. They need to become equal partners. Then they can make music together. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

I worked for some time in the eighties for Sherman-Clay here in L.A.   They had the local Steinway franchise.  Steinway was undergoing changes of ownership.  Corporate buy-outs were in vogue and new management was looking for ways to cut corners. Greed was good. They were putting pressure on the local dealerships to carry more of the load of prepping the instruments.  All the new grands were coming in not having been juiced at all. This had always been in the purview of the factory, and for good reason.  Hardening the hammers with lacquer is a stinky, toxic and time-consuming business with a steep learning curve.  You start with a compete soaking with a ten percent solution.  You have to wait for this to thoroughly dry before you can move on more finicky spot treating the shoulders and crown.  You never know what you've got until it dries.  With the buffing, regulation and tuning, every grand required a week's work in the shop before it was ready for the showroom, not counting the time you have to lay it aside to wait for the lacquer to dry.  The hammers had been shaped but not juiced in the factory, so they looked all right, but they mostly sounded very underwhelming.  That Steinway sound?  That's the lacquer.  Sherman-Clay was a large concern, with stores up and down the West Coast, so they did what was necessary, but I'm sure many smaller dealerships of that era proved unwilling to shoulder this added burden.  So yes, there are plenty of mushy Steinways from that era still out there and no amount of "playing them in" is going to make them stand up like they've got a spine.   

Could be a stiff board,  too thick and/or not sufficiently tapered.  Should check damper upstop rail.

Hi Joe,

Just now reading this thread.   I once looked a a B with totally choked tone in the Capo section.  Turned out the V bar was poorly shaped and kind of flat in the worst possible way.  I was pleasantly suprised after reshaping.  The tone opened right up beautifully.   

Hi Joe,

Just now reading this thread.   I once looked a a B with totally choked tone in the Capo section.  Turned out the V bar was poorly shaped and kind of flat in the worst possible way.  I was pleasantly suprised after reshaping.  The tone opened right up beautifully.   

Joe,

Yes, I will strongly second David's advice to check the V-bar, especially on an 80's B. Pretty easy to do with a mirror and strong light. 

Nonetheless, if it is in fact U-shaped and strings buried in it (probably it would be having the standard buzzing problems too), fixing it will still require dropping the tension. So that would be a convenient excuse to analyze the true crown/downbearing situation at the same time. (At least the capo situation is something that can be SEEN, vs an obscure theory that cannot yet be seen). If it turns out that you uncover BOTH issues, then you have the opportunity to turn that baby into a "Killer B"!

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Joe,

Just now reading this thread.   I once looked a a B with totally choked tone in the Capo section.  Turned out the V bar was poorly shaped and kind of flat in the worst possible way.  I was pleasantly suprised after reshaping.  The tone opened right up beautifully.   

Macro camera shots aiming up from underneath provide stunning detail that may be studied as well.

Joe,

Yes, I will strongly second David's advice to check the V-bar, especially on an 80's B. Pretty easy to do with a mirror and strong light. 

Nonetheless, if it is in fact U-shaped and strings buried in it (probably it would be having the standard buzzing problems too), fixing it will still require dropping the tension. So that would be a convenient excuse to analyze the true crown/downbearing situation at the same time. (At least the capo situation is something that can be SEEN, vs an obscure theory that cannot yet be seen). If it turns out that you uncover BOTH issues, then you have the opportunity to turn that baby into a "Killer B"!

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Joe,

Just now reading this thread.   I once looked a a B with totally choked tone in the Capo section.  Turned out the V bar was poorly shaped and kind of flat in the worst possible way.  I was pleasantly suprised after reshaping.  The tone opened right up beautifully.   

Macro camera shots aiming up from underneath provide stunning detail that may be studied as well.

------------------------------
David Stanwood RPT
Stanwood Piano Innovations Inc.
West Tisbury MA
(508) 693-1583

Original Message:
Sent: 08-19-2023 10:25
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Strangely choked tone

Joe,

Yes, I will strongly second David's advice to check the V-bar, especially on an 80's B. Pretty easy to do with a mirror and strong light. 

Nonetheless, if it is in fact U-shaped and strings buried in it (probably it would be having the standard buzzing problems too), fixing it will still require dropping the tension. So that would be a convenient excuse to analyze the true crown/downbearing situation at the same time. (At least the capo situation is something that can be SEEN, vs an obscure theory that cannot yet be seen). If it turns out that you uncover BOTH issues, then you have the opportunity to turn that baby into a "Killer B"!

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 08-16-2023 18:39
From: Joe Wiencek
Subject: Strangely choked tone

David,
Capo shape is something I did not check, but certainly will at the next visit. Thanks for relaying the experience.

Joe


Original Message:
Sent: 8/16/2023 4:45:00 PM
From: David Stanwood
Subject: RE: Strangely choked tone

Hi Joe,

Just now reading this thread.   I once looked a a B with totally choked tone in the Capo section.  Turned out the V bar was poorly shaped and kind of flat in the worst possible way.  I was pleasantly suprised after reshaping.  The tone opened right up beautifully.   

------------------------------
David Stanwood RPT
Stanwood Piano Innovations Inc.
West Tisbury MA
(508) 693-1583

Original Message:
Sent: 08-06-2023 16:18
From: Joe Wiencek
Subject: Strangely choked tone

Steinway L from 1981 felt hammer flanges, teflon elsewhere.
The tone is very choked, with and without hammers exciting strings. Hammer wear normal, good shaping done. Worse in two capo sections. I cannot find any obstructions against soundboard, nor bridges. All joints appear and feel solid (soundboard to rim, ribs to sb, bridges to soundboard.) No buzz to the tone. Sounds as if a thick blanket was pressed strongly into the board. Downbearing positive, and minimal. Dynamic range very compressed, sustain dies quickly, again worst in capo. No felt etc., covering front or rear duplex treble areas. Strings original.

Owner claims no damages from spilled liquids or any other source.
Has anyone any experience with a similar situation? Any likely culprits as to the cause? Or pointers on where else to investigate? I have never heard anything quite like this, particularly from a 40 year old board.


Joe Wiencek
NYC