modifying a mechanism as if it were a Steinway

It is not just the action that differs, it is the philosophy behind it that is completely different from other pianos....the action itself, apart from the forcola and the stop cushion, is not so different from a standard Renner; the Yamaha action, for example, is even more similar... however, there are positions, inclinations, and keys that change, and even if one were to think of doing what you say by adapting all the bars, supports, etc., the result would not be worth the hours of work required to achieve it.

And even with identical measurements and design between two Steinways born in the same period, there can be small differences that give a different sensation to the player...this is why a piano is chosen.

The main problem is understanding where you want to start from and what you want to achieve.

giovannig wrote:

It is not just the key lever that differs, it is the philosophy behind it that is completely different from other pianos....the lever itself, apart from the capstan and the key bushing, is not so different from a standard Renner; the Yamaha lever, for example, is even more similar... however, there are positions, inclinations, and keys that change, and even if one were to think of doing what you say by adapting all the bars, supports, etc., the result would not be worth the hours of work required to achieve it.

And even with identical measurements and design between two Steinways born in the same period, there can be small differences that give a different sensation to the player...this is why a piano is chosen.

Thank you for the answer Giovanni, very clear. I understand, it was just to get confirmation of what I was imagining.

If instead one intends only to bring the weight ratio (27 versus 47 response, if I'm not mistaken) compared to the canonical 52, is there a risk of obtaining a keyboard that is too light?

Steinways from the early 1900s had a let-off of 45 grams or even less, the repetitions were 2 grams lighter than current ones and there was the right return, but the keyboard was heavily weighted with lead, even towards the fulcrum... an absolutely lighter keyboard (in grams) but with a lot of inertia.... I believe it is preferable to have a let-off weight of even 60 grams but to limit the lead; the pianist feels a more agile, faster action (see Kawais, for example).

In the end, the rules exist but one must also evaluate case by case; there are many variables that make one choice more likely than another...

I once happened to pick up a grand piano, German, which I didn't even inspect closely.... I played it a little and it seemed incredibly smooth, beautiful! When the time came to get my hands on it, I saw that there was very little lead in the key and the let-off weight was 65 grams; without measuring, I would never have guessed! So, in my opinion, the pianist's enemies are not so much the absolute grams but the friction and inertia....

giovannig wrote:

Steinways from the early 1900s had a let-off of 45 grams or even less, the repetitions were 2 grams lighter than current ones and there was the right return, but the keyboard was heavily weighted with lead, even towards the fulcrum... the lightest keyboard in absolute terms (in grams) but with a lot of inertia.... I believe it is preferable to have a let-off weight of even 60 grams but to limit the lead; the pianist feels a more agile, faster action (see Kawais, for example).

In the end, there are rules, but one must also evaluate case by case; there are many variables that make one choice more likely than another...

I once happened to pick up a grand piano, German, which I didn't even inspect closely.... I played it a little and it seemed incredibly smooth, beautiful! When the time came to get my hands on it, I saw that there was very little lead in the key and the let-off weight was 65 grams; without measuring, I would never have guessed! So, in my opinion, the pianist's enemies are not so much the absolute grams but the friction and inertia....

It's true, there are times when even my piano feels like a feather, especially in summer (heat always has good effects), whereas in winter it becomes just a bit slower. Even the Steinways at the conservatory that I usually play, which should date back to the very first decades of 1900 (I want to verify this as soon as I go back), which are considered by everyone to have "butter keys," there are times when the keyboard seems just a bit heavier.

What can be done when a repetition lever pin creaks? I have one that should be slightly deoxidized but I don't know how; it should be the one for the escapement lever behind the adjustment button of the same.

The pin is changed. Correct observations, Giovannig. It is clear that too much lead modifies the inertia too much and therefore it is not recommended. Friction must always be checked before measuring the weight of the key depression and the return of the key!

You must have the pin extractor to remove it, you must lower the action to replace it; you can use a wire of the same size as the old pin (but knurled with sandpaper) to ream the hole if you don't have the proper tools. Then insert the new pin, one size larger if necessary. The pins sold in long rods (wires indeed) are easier to use; do you know how to insert them?

Alternatively, you can try, without removing it, to dampen it with a drop of white spirit which degreases it without affecting the wood, and then evaporates on its own... occasionally move the pusher, but these are not definitive remedies.

Summer or winter can certainly have an effect; with humidity, the felts swell, and also damp hammers sound less and the response changes.

The conservatory pianos will surely be used quite a lot; with wear, friction is completely lost, and even the hammers shave down and wear out over time, becoming lighter....as you know, one gram less on the hammer affects the key by 5 or 6 grams due to the mechanical ratio, and if the hammer loses mass, the inertia also decreases.

There are no great witchcraft secrets in the piano...a concert technician preparing a piano finds a balance between all variables to ensure that the instrument performs at its best. In a home piano (practice piano), this much time is often not dedicated, partly because it is physically more limited than a grand piano and you cannot achieve the same result in terms of touch (the key is longer and it's not just that)...

What do you mean by having to "lower" the bridge? Unscrew it from the back? Wouldn't it be simpler to pull it out altogether?

Well, without a doubt, in a grand piano the sound quality is better because the strings are longer and thinner... I believe that the overall quality of the instrument has a huge influence, beyond the size of the piano.
To give you an example, I really appreciated a 160cm Grotrian Steinweg; that sound was incredible despite the size. Let's just say that in a piano I don't much appreciate absolute harmonicity, but rather a middle ground; I don't love a sound that is too "transparent".

They told me an anecdote about a great pianist who went to Hamburg to choose a grand piano, he hadn't found one that was satisfactory.... He returned a week later to try others and was finally satisfied.... No one told him it was the same one he had tried a week before but moved to the other corner.

Tirar giù il cavalletto significa per me svitarlo e portarlo “a banco”

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

[RunAI:lang=it]
Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

Open content (youtube)

To me, the piano in the video says nothing; in fact, I even find it unpleasant, tuned too "tight"...waaawaaaa (octaves)

It's a matter of taste, curious don't you think?

So true! As the good Einstein used to say, "everything is relative."
Regarding tuning, however, I agree with you; I think the inequality is excessive (at least that's how it seems from the way he uses so-called "sympathies").
Even if timbrally, as Maestro Ferrarelli rightly recalled in a video, the same piano can sound completely disharmonious and unpleasant when played by one person and extremely harmonious by another.
The fact is that I often have bad experiences at concerts; I happen to find pianos tuned in a modern way (like intercoms) when I have almost the entire romantic repertoire, all at 440, all static and perfect, no vibrato, no color (so gray), no sympathies, and you need something to get an effect out of it... furthermore, the sound is almost always closed; When I find an old Steinway that is perhaps blatantly out of tune and ringing, which sounds on its own, I say "hallelujah," and in the end, I prefer the opposite excess (although it's not always very pleasant). I've called it the intercom syndrome...
Finally, I say to myself, maybe finding a prepared piano in the hall like Horowitz's in some performances, or like Cortot's Pleyel.... and the dream goes on.

But even Horowitz's piano sometimes turns out to be too heavy on the bass (bam bam) but that's understandable... we are surely all influenced by the beautiful recordings of the 50s and 60s from Deutsche Grammophon

eheh... they probably fascinate us because they are the interpretations closest to the composer's musical project.
He was very perceptive; knowing how to use the entire pianissimo range so well, he also knew that if the hammer was more heavily felted, timbrally he had a couple of extra dynamic cards to play with, up to the "coarse", if nineteenth-century music was an imitation of nature, even a river in flood could be part of it and everything became possible...
Feeling the touch, I also have the impression that the hammers were regulated very close to the string, so as to be pressed even with flat fingers and produce the various types of touch within the pianissimo.

I'm leaving this video from '86, Horowitz playing a J. Becker (perhaps not his piano, I couldn't figure that part out, but it seems to be Pletnev's). The piano seems more expressive/animated than the one he usually plays.

Open content (youtube)

The adjustments are certainly very personal... and they were certainly not Steinways in factory condition (he had several following that). Anyway, there are several interviews with Franz Mohr where he recounts the work with Horowitz... I am more in favor of Rubinstein's philosophy, both in terms of pianism and regarding the instrument

As much as you can carry the same piano with you, always the same technician, and even the doctor—things certainly become easier, from which effects you can obtain, you know the pedals etc etc...

I knew the video, I cited it to say that technique is independent of the instrument

For me, it depends on the individual piece; there are works where I prefer Rubinstein's interpretation, others Horowitz's, and so on. Or rather, those that suit their personalities more.
In my opinion, one should have more than one piano; there are repertoire pieces that marry certain interpretations better than others. For example, for late Liszt, Bechsteins are beautiful instruments, which he composed on, as a sound philosophy.
It would be fantastic to change technique as the instrument and repertoire change....

giovannig wrote:

I knew the video; I mentioned it to say that technique is independent of the instrument

Haha no, I was trying to discover something more about this particular context.

I made a mistake writing, I meant to say that I was about to quote him.

More prepared pianos, it's something that is done, Pollini for example changes pianos during the concert depending on the composer

The way I see it, having more than one piano is yes.... but at home, not in the concert hall.
In my opinion, it is more productive to choose one instrument or another per concert, based on the nature of the majority of the pieces in the program.
Changing pianos during the same performance, in my view, disrupts neurological connections, and in the end, the actual sonic difference is minimal because the brain acts by imitation in an attempt to quickly readjust to the other piano (due to auditory and kinetic memory, which clash with the diversity of the instrument).
Paradoxically, Pollini, who concentrates his pianistic attention on efficiency (and therefore not on the 'technè' of sound understood as technical/sonic differentiation) chose to use different pianos, but the overall sonic difference is very slight—also because his technique is standardized regardless of the composition (both in terms of pedaling and movement), he doesn't even separate very different styles in his pianism despite the different historical periods.
I see his approach more as a personal whim to have different sensations (free to indulge himself, naturally), but it hardly has any impact on the actual sonic result, that is, what the audience perceives. All in all, if he always played on the same piano, I think no one would miss it.
Even Andras Schiff, who uses a Steinway and a Bösendorfer during the same concert, seems too mono-technical for this use to have an evident sonic purpose.

Besides, if an artist of Rubinstein's caliber, who could have afforded much more than two instruments, didn't do it... nor did Horowitz, who was so interested in having a great timbral variety and not boring the audience. For me, they understood that even for them, using multiple pianos in the same concert would not be all that productive; perhaps they knew that doing so would lead them to lose focus...