The capo d'astro bar, I believe, was a part of the secret of Steinway's
success. So said the copywriter who wrote a later ad series based on
that patented point-of-difference. Somehow, this kept the strings on the
treble end from doing something old pianos tended to let them do.

Steven Austin

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jerry Young
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 3:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] analyzing room acoustics to identify recording

--- Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 > Similarly, if one cannot hear the difference
> a Steinway - any
> Steinway - and a Boesendorfer Imperial Grand, one is
> either aurally
> incompetent or asleep.

I think that experienced listeners can usually tell,
but sometimes I guess wrong. However, it seems that
for pianos the distribution has become pretty steep
and pointy around the mean.

> True enough, the Yamaha and other more recent lines
> are modelled on the
> Steinway for quite sound reasons (pun intended).
> Above all, the action,
> then the volume of sound generated and finally the
> timbre provide ample
> justification for emulation.

Hard to argue against a Steinway, and i can see the
musical reason it won out. (I'm guessing there were
marketing strategies too). I'd miss having a Steinway
to play on, but nevertheless, I envy the folks in the
19th century when piano repertoire was changing with
the changing design of the piano.

Piano design has flattened out, and technology
watching has shifted to tennis shoes and things that
need electricity.  The thought of Serkin with a
Baldwin is as much a mismatch as, say, Tarzan and
Isolde. (Or should that be Tristan and Jane?)