Recently in an exchange of email, Doug Rhodes posed the following
question about a Weber Duo-Art owned by a mutual friend, that is in
need of some help to bring its "voice" into some degree of harmony
with a relatively small living room...

> He and I regulated the expression accordion on his Weber
> Duo-Art a few months ago using a dial gauge.  Definitely an
> improvement over what it had been (which was way too loud), but I
> want to experiment on it this summer to try to further compress the
> dynamic range.  The piano is a very good Weber, but it is small and a
> bit brash, and it is in a relatively small room.  I'd like to find a
> dynamic range that represents how the recorded pianist would have
> played _that_ piano in _that_ room, not a nine-footer in a big hall.

> I think that part of the problem I have with his piano is that the
> Duo-Art coding is aimed at a larger piano.  The test roll really
> functions quite well, but some classical rolls are just too soft and
> wimpy on pianissimo passages, though there are no drop-outs.
> Similarly, the fortissimo passages are still a bit overwhelming.  The
> softer playing is the greater concern now, as it just doesn't sound
> very realistic.  I'm ready to depart from the 1/8", 1/4", etc. spacing
> of the accordion in favour of some experimentally arrived at spacing
> that *sounds right*.  I'm pretty ignorant of the theory behind the
> expression coding on either the Duo-Art or Ampico rolls, but I _do_
> know what real live piano playing sounds like, so trial and error may
> be the method used.

> Any ideas?

I too once had a 6' Mason & Risch Duo-Art in my small living room, and
it too was way too loud.   In my experience, it is much more difficult
to tone down a big Duo-Art than an Ampico.   However, by using a mix of
tools and techniques, I was able to bring it down to a tolerable
level.    Some things to consider:

1. I believe the Duo-Art was always intended primarily for fine
   quality performance of classical music, while providing reasonably
   good performances of the pops and ballads.   Ampico on the other
   hand was I believe intended for average fireside entertainment in
   average homes where contemporary music of the 20's was dominant, but
   when called upon to do so, could do a reasonably good job with
   classical music.   Classical music rarely does well if the system is
   choked in some fashion, therefore should always be running with the
   full range of dynamics and power.

2. A brilliant, brassy piano is usually telling me it's hammers need to
   be softened somewhat.   I've done a fair amount of voicing with my
   own pianos only, I would not attempt to do so with somebody else's
   piano.   On my Mason, I replaced the hammers, specifying I wanted to
   soften the voice of the piano somewhat, hoping for that elusive,
   sensuous Mason & Hamlin sound.   The result came close, but only
   after extensive voicing.   I worked at it for weeks, with results
   not too satisfying.   In desperation, I resorted to what seemed like
   drastic measures, squeezing the hammers with parallel-jawed pliers
   either side of the crown, about 3-4 passes single squeeze at a time
   until I detected noticeable results.    To my surprise and delight,
   the piano's total voice did noticeably improve for that small living
   room.  I don't believe I overdid it.

3. A big Duo-Art will absolutely not play softly if piano regulation is
   out anywhere.   An Ampico for some reason is a little more
   forgiving.  Many years ago, I was fortunate enough to acquire a
   Piano Service Manual for a contemporary grand piano, which provides
   pretty good guidelines for grand regulation.    It has been a great
   help to me over the years, and I now do my own grand regulation.

4. The previous owner of my Mason had not restored the valves, but had
   recovered the note striker pneumatics.   I finally had to drop the
   stack, and redo the valves and I found the valve leather facings
   quite badly deteriorated.   I also found that the pneumatics had
   been recovered with a cotton based replica of the old original
   fabric.  I believe that fabric is still being sold today, but in my
   judgement it is too thick and heavy for the sensitivity needed for a
   reproducing piano.   I recovered the pneumatics with "Shultz" cloth,
   silk based, extremely light and super flexible.   Quite costly and
   difficult to handle until I discovered the Dritz Cutting Wheel.
   The combination of new valve facings, valve travel reset, bleeds
   cleaned out thoroughly, and the Shultz cloth made another noticeable
   difference.  That piano will play tolerably at just over 4", but is
   reliable at 5" at which I left it.

5. About 20 years ago, Bob Taylor in Philadelphia did some
   experimenting with the springs on the Duo-Art expression box, and
   found he was able to get an improvement in soft performance with
   different springs.   I bought 2 pair from him at the time, installed
   one pair in that Mason, and once again, yet another improvement in
   soft performance.   I do not know in what way these springs are
   different, for I am not an engineer, and Bob never did reveal what
   he ended up with.   From an engineer's viewpoint, this is something
   worth exploring.   This aspect of the Duo-Art has never been
   documented, at least not in the AMICA Bulletin, of which I have a
   full 32 year unbroken set.

6. Something I've wondered about, but have never tried is to tune the
   piano somewhat below A440.   It seems to me that this might
   additionally help bring a piano's voice into harmony with its
   location.    I do not have a "tuning ear", so have to resort to an
   old tube type "Strobotuner", which gives me reasonably satisfying
   results for me here at home.   When I take a piano out for a public
   performance, part of the sponsor's obligation is a professional
   tuning job on stage.

> You mentioned de-tuning the piano from A-440 in an attempt to tone
> down the instrument.  I would think you'd have to drop the pitch fairly
> considerably, perhaps a half-step or more before you'd really begin to
> affect the loudness, though you would certainly sense a change in
> tone.  The de-stabilization of tuning, and the work it would require to
> re-stabilize at A-440 would not be worth the experiment, in my
> judgment.

These are a few considerations that might be considered.   I am not a
professional piano technician, I do not do work for other people, only
my own instruments.   And I am not an engineer, just a self-taught
technician.   Much of what I have expressed here might not stand the
test of an engineer's sharp pencil.   Perhaps others on this list might
wish to expand on these and/or other considerations.  This is one of
the reasons why I enjoy this list so much, where I feel the freedom to
expose my ignorance in dignity and emerge a little wiser.

In principle, much of what I've mentioned here is what I do with all
the grands I own, as a ground-up restoration from rough basket-case.
My 1935 George Steck Ampico A/B currently in my living room responded
very well to this overall treatment, set at a dynamic range of 4.5" to
20" in my living room, and to 35" when taken out for public concert
performances.

Curiously, this particular system originally came with an B drawer, B
stack, and A everything else.   The expression units are abbreviated
with no regulators, only a single crescendo, and no compensators or
equalizers.   I suspect it was likely assembled out of left-over parts
following the Aeolian/American merger.    I've recently added a second
crescendo to bring it up to "A" expression specs.   It's performance is
quite dramatic, guaranteed to provoke leaky eyeballs.  Emotional
reactions are quite common in its presence.

Any other thoughts on this intriguing subject?

Regards,

Terry

Home Page:   http://www.mts.net/~smythe