Baldwin Artist Series

[William Manico]

I have played some of the newer Baldwin Artist Series grands. They are
wonderful pianos, although I prefer the sound of M&H or Steinway. The
Baldwin sound seems to me to be better suited for Jazz then Classical.

I once played an old Baldwin circa late 1920's and it had a wonderful rich
and mellow sound. It had an action that was very light and crisp. It did not
sound like contemporary Baldwins. Are current Baldwins made along the same
lines as the older ones from the early part of the last century?

[Sonarrat Citalis]

Mon, 14 May 2001 21:34:11 -0400, William Manico scratched into my forehead:

>I once played an old Baldwin circa late 1920's and it had a wonderful rich
>and mellow sound. It had an action that was very light and crisp. It did not
>sound like contemporary Baldwins. Are current Baldwins made along the same
>lines as the older ones from the early part of the last century?

Absolutely not. Our family has a 1919 Baldwin baby grand, and it was handbuilt
- not today. Of course, it also had ivory keys...

-Snrrt Ctls, yr fthfl srvnt.

Dragon Code: DC2.Mfps+D Gm L12f T2c Phlwlt Sku Cpi+/wh:wh,ebl++ Bic/wa A17
Fr Ni M O+ H $- F---! R+++! Ac~ J(r++v--) U! I V---! Q---! Tc++ Df+++!

[Don]

On Tue, 15 May 2001 15:08:00 GMT, Sonarrat
Citalis<sona...@postmark.net> wrote:

>Mon, 14 May 2001 21:34:11 -0400, William Manico scratched into my forehead:
>
>>I once played an old Baldwin circa late 1920's and it had a wonderful rich
>>and mellow sound. It had an action that was very light and crisp. It did not
>>sound like contemporary Baldwins. Are current Baldwins made along the same
>>lines as the older ones from the early part of the last century?
>
>Absolutely not. Our family has a 1919 Baldwin baby grand, and it was handbuilt
>- not today.

Who told you that they were not handbuilt today?

D*

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart;
and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

---Winston Churchill

[George Gilliland]

Hi. The older ones were considerably better. But there are some similarities,
such as scale length and tension. The older plates had conventional hitch pins
and tuned duplex, which is the biggest difference between today's grands which
use the much-maligned "accu-hitch" pins. It's hard to compare the tone, because
it's impossible to know exactly how they sounded then, but I think that as they
age the newer ones will assume some of the same tonal characteristics of the
old ones. I base this assumption on some Baldwin grands I've played from the
sixties that aren't over the hill quite, but not young anymore either, which
are considerably more mellow than the new ones. The action parts were much
better in the old days, as were the rims and plates, but you can say that about
Steinway too. . .

I've played some pre-war Fs that were fantastic. One was original belly that
was starting to die but still sounded really nice, the other was a complete
rebuild (by Faust/Harrison, I think) that sounded out of this world. Better
than a Steinway. This one was probably from the 20s originally. They're great
pianos. Nice touch. They sound like Steinways really. They were built like
tanks, and seem to me worthy of the same praise that the old Chickerings,
Knabes, and Mason & Hamlins get.

G.

[Dave Andrews]

George Gilliland wrote in part:

<< The older ones were considerably better. >>

This comes as somewhat of a surprise to me. Back in @1967, Baldwin got tons of
free publicity (including the cover of Time magazine) on the numerous patents
developed for the SD-10, and it was heralded as a Steinway beater among the C &
A crowd. It was also about 15% more expensive than a Steinway D then (for
whatever that's worth).

<< But there are some similarities, such as scale length and tension. The older
plates had conventional hitch pins and tuned duplex, which is the biggest
difference between today's grands which use the much-maligned "accu-hitch"
pins. >>

The Accu-Just hitch pins were maligned? Never heard that before, honestly.
This patented improvement gave the Baldwin duplex scale a larger role in
producing "piano vapor" as well as a longer decay rate, more complex harmonics
and a wider range of dynamics. With adjustable hitch pins, it became possible
to accurately dial in an optimum downbearing amount for every production piano
thus increasing sample to sample uniformity -- as opposed to the rather more
tedious and less accurate method of planing bridges and shimming plates.
Baldwin was able to achieve string tension on a par with the Steinway D, but
with less than half the downbearing using the adjustable hitch pin.

As the owner of a roughly10 year old Baldwin SF-10, I have yet to play an older
F or SD-6 or pre-1970 vintage Baldwin grand that was anywhere near as good as
mine. I'm certainly willing to be surprised, but after the SD-10 came out,
Baldwin scored a number of major artists from Steinway. Unfortunately, they
have managed to lose many of them to others in the past decade or so -- pretty
much since the time that Baldwin's longtime C & A manager, Jack Roman, passed
away. This was due more to an ineffective C & A program than a fault of the
instruments. Baldwin has squandered even more of its "brand equity" recently
under the leadership of a person that was supposed to enhance such.

P.S. Not looking for a fight here -- just tossing out some info from an
ex-Baldwin district sales manager..

With all due respect,
Dave Andrews
D. W. Andrews Associates
Church Music System Specialists
"Two Hacks Working Out Of A Garage"

Disclaimer: If there are two ways to take my words,
always assume I was after the cheap laugh.

[Larry]

>This patented improvement gave the Baldwin duplex scale a larger role in
>producing "piano vapor" as well as a longer decay rate, more complex
>harmonics

Uh......was there an odor associated with this "piano vapor" and longer decay
rate?

Just kidding.

That's a new one on me.

Larry Fletcher
Pianos Inc
Atlanta GA
Dealer/technician

Doing the work of three men.....Larry, Curly, & Moe
Want to visit another piano related messageboard? Go to the piano discussion
group on my website:

Http://www.pianosinc.net

[Pcaorwb]

I (the Bank) own an SD-10. Maybe it doesn't have that "Steinway Mystique", but
it's no slouch either. I'm pleased with it, and it holds its tuning very well,
and its touch is light (around 48grams) campared to the almost mint SF-10 I
had several years ago. It also had an awsome sound.

[Dave Andrews]

Larry Fletcher asks quite incredulously:

<< Uh......was there an odor associated with this "piano vapor" and longer
decay rate? >>

Not as long as the ambient temperature stays below 35 degrees fahrenheit (which
is actually a balmy 245 degrees in dog temperature).

<< That's a new one on me. >>

Welcome to the club, Larry. Everytime I speak I learn something new.

"Piano vapor" is one of those old time piano engineering phrases that refers to
the "reverberance" of a piano. I believe it was first coined by the guys
working on the original Mason & Hamlin piano with the "shepherd's crook"
bass/tenor bridge assembly. Of course, I learned this term from another piano
"industry professional" (isn't that an oxymoron). He may be reading this right
now and laughing his fanny off at the fact that I'm using a term he made-up
just to play on my ignorance. But as you know, I'm no stranger to personal
humiliation.

[Darryl Greene]

>...The action parts were much

>better in the old days, as were the rims and plates, but you can say that about
>Steinway too. . .

Could you please expand on this? - I own a 1911S&S B but I don't know
that the action, rim & plate are any better than a new one (though I
think my plate is more ornate and beautiful).

- Darryl

[George Gilliland]

Re: the Steinway plates, I'm repeating what rebuilders have often said to me
(Faust/Harrison especially claims the old ones were far better). Cosmetically they
certainly looked a lot nicer. Today's Steinway plate is quite crude by comparison,
although this probably doesn't affect tone. Incidentally, up until recently both
Steinway and Baldwin had their plates cast in the same factory, and you can see
many similar irregularities in the workmanship, which is far below what it was
pre-war. Again, I don't know if this means anything tonally.

Re: the action parts and rims, this is more related to Baldwin. The old ones were
more massively constructed and had beautifully shaped and finished action parts.
Today, I guess the SF10 and SD have renner parts, but from the L down, the parts
are very crude. I've also herd more than once that the pre-war S&S actions were
superior to today's.

Re: the accu-hitch pins: I don't have any opinion on them technically, but several
people in this newsgroup have been critical of them. They've been accused of
Baldwin of using them as a compensation for sloppy workmanship in bellying the
piano. I disagree with this, mainly based on the tremendous amount of trial and
error work Baldwin certainly had to do to develop and tune these plates. It would
have been far easier for them to just continue using the same designs (essentially
copies of S&S scales that worked quite well) and setting the downbearing in the
traditional way.

But Based on my own piano though, the accu-hitch plates don't work well in the
upper octaves. There's a lot of false-beating. Someone (I think it was Del
Fandrich, I can't remember), claimed that this was actually due to inadequate
termination in the front duplex. This can be fixed by raising the string rests,
something Baldwin actually did with the two big pianos by adding separate
adjustible string rests that not only raise the strings behind the capo d'astro bar
but also fine-tune the duplex there. This seemed to work quite well in a new SF10 I
played last year, which had a beautiful clear treble, and was otherwise a
fantistic piano.

But getting back to older Steinways and Baldwins, it's just plain clear to anyone
who looks them over carefully and compares that they were much nicer instruments
than today's, in many big and little ways that are too numerous to list. This is
especially true of Baldwin, whereas the differences in S&S I think are primarily
cosmetic and perhaps the action parts. And you can actually experience this
somewhat by playing the old Bs in the Faust/Harrison showroom and then walking a
few blocks to Steinway hall and playing the new Bs there which sound really
inferior most of the time.

But this is mostly prep work and good voicing and regulating, which S&S plainly
just doesn't do as well.

G.G.

[George Gilliland]

Hiya. I missed your post on the last pass. I found your comments interesting, and
I have no argument with your thoughts on the accu-hitch plate. I think it was a
great idea that needed further fine tuning, but at some point it seems they
trailed off on it. I have an L that's very messy in octaves 5 & 6. Very complex
harmonics indeed. Too complex.

The SF10 is considerably cleaner upstairs and I'd love to have a good one. I
honestly believe that in a blindfold test between a well-voiced SF10 and a S&S B
nine out of ten people would choose the Baldwin.

Unfortunately the L is a big step down. But some of the things you said still
apply to the L. Where the scale works, it works really well. The middle registers
have a lot of beautifully ringing harmonics and long sustain, and the bass is
tremondously rich. But the two or three ugly notes in the upper register are
frustrating.

I think Baldwin was onto many good things. I'm skeptical about how often "optimal
downbearing" is actually achieved. It's hard to imagine anyone caring enough to
bother anymore. What's happened at Baldwin over the last 20 years makes me very
sad. . . I hate to hear the brand ridiculed because I've got tremendous enjoyment
from mine. It's imperfectly beautiful, just like a human being. I'm romanticizing
the experience of course.

I love listening to those last Bill Evens recordings from the Keystone Korner back
in1980 (was that an L or an SF10?) Mine are bootleg, so I don't have the liner
notes, but there's no question in my mind he's playing a Baldwin, because I'm so
intimately familiar with all the little quirks and imperfections that add up to
that glorious, unmistakable Baldwin sound (that single ugly little note in
somewhere in octave six, that wooden E2 at the bass break, etc.). These are just
incredibly poignant, beautiful recordings, and that piano really sings its heart
out. If anyone in this group is curious to know what a Baldwin grand really sounds
like they should get these records. Bill was on his way out then, and so is
Baldwin now, I guess. . .

sniffle, sniffle.

G.G.

[Dave Andrews]

George Gilliland wrote (in part) about Baldwin's adjustable hitch pins:

<< I think it was a great idea that needed further fine tuning, but at some
point it seems they
trailed off on it. I have an L that's very messy in octaves 5 & 6. Very complex
harmonics indeed. Too complex. >>

Thanks for your post, George. I think that the Accu-Just Hitch Pins represent
a concept that is actually quite refined. However, the execution may have been
somewhat imperfect on your piano which might give you a negative impression
about it. Regarding the problems you are hearing, I am not a technician and
can't even pretend to be one because I would get my clock cleaned here on RMMP.
But I do know enough to be dangerous. There are a number of things that might
be problematic on your piano that could be corrected. For now, I'll just stick
to the topic I started commenting on.

Baldwin was awarded a patent on the adjustable hitch pin process. Another
process that they developed about the same time was the plate suspension
system, also awarded a patent. The traditional way of shimming plates and
planing bridges for downbearing adjustments was dropped in favor of using
double threaded rim bolts around the perimeter of the piano. This process
actually "suspends" the plate above the inner rim and allows for rough
adjustments in the string height -- or better stated, the downbearing. Rather
than to set the plate on the inner rim using calibrated shims to change the
height as you measure the downbearing across the bridge, take it off again,
plane the bridge, add/subtract more shims, etc., etc., -- with the Baldwin, you
just turn a bunch of finely threaded bolts around the perimeter to raise and
lower the plate and get the downbearing just about right. Then you take a
gauge, lay it across the bridge and adjust the downbearing of each string pair
individually to optimize it. Voila! A very fine adjustment for optimizing the
downbearing. Very ingenuous. Very accurate. I've been to the Steinway and
Baldwin factories and watched this same process. Steinway gets those magical
moments when great board resonance meets optimum downbearing and they turn out
a killer piano, but there are way more near misses than direct hits in their
process.

Now, if your piano has problems with downbearing, this is easily fixed in the
field by a qualified tech with close enough ties to Baldwin to allow them to
ship the measurement gauge and the adjustment tool to the tech for downbearing
calibrations. Unless the policy has changed since I left, this gauge is not
sold -- it is only loaned to the tech for a long enough time period to do the
job and then return it to Baldwin. They are very protective of their
technology -- although at this point, I think the patents have expired.
Anyway, the point is, it's possible to make downbearing adjustments in the
field quite easily and quickly with their assistance. Not surprisingly, there
are factors that may have affected the downbearing on your piano that had
nothing to do with the factory getting it wrong. OTOH, Baldwin is not perfect
(I have a keen sense of the obvious). That's the bad news. The good news is
it can be fixed easily and inexpensively in your home.

<< The SF10 is considerably cleaner upstairs and I'd love to have a good one.>>

I own an SF-10, but my first choice was an L because of size and price. I just
happened to have stumbled on a once in a lifetime opportunity on an artist used
SF-10 that made it nearly the same price as the L, so I bought it. But some of
the best pianos I ever played were Baldwin L's, and your experience and mine
with comparing the two are at odds here.

<< I honestly believe that in a blindfold test between a well-voiced SF10 and
a S&S B
nine out of ten people would choose the Baldwin. >>

You never want to underestimate the variety and complexity of individual
tastes. This might be true for you and me, but loads of people are looking for
something a little different. I owned a Steinway L for about 3 or 4 years that
was a really sweet piano. Midrange and treble were spectacular, bass was a lot
weaker than the Baldwin, and the dynamic range and decay rate were not up to
the Baldwin either. But it was still nice, and was just the ticket for the guy
that bought it. For what he paid, he could have had a new Baldwin L, but he
liked the Steinway. So here you have a guy dropping a great Steinway in favor
of a great Baldwin, and another buying a great used Steinway and spending more
than a new comparable Baldwin would cost. Go figure. BTW, I also just gave
away a 1925 Steinway L to my church that I traded in on a sound system. I had
my tech put Abel hammers on it, reconditioned the action, replaced shanks,
flanges, rebushed, reset tuning pins, cleaned up the whole thing, voiced, etc.
and it turned out way better than I imagined it would. The Abel hammers
produced a dynamic range that is very impressive -- whisper to a roar. But,
I'm still a Baldwin guy deep down inside. Although if somebody wants to trade
me even up for a Fazioli ...

<< Unfortunately the L is a big step down. >>

Can't agree for reasons I tried to state above.

<<I'm skeptical about how often "optimal
downbearing" is actually achieved. >>

Call in the Baldwin folks, and they'll be glad to help your piano -- for a
small fee, of course. ;-)

<< but there's no question in my mind he's playing a Baldwin, because I'm so
intimately familiar with all the little quirks and imperfections that add up to
that glorious, unmistakable Baldwin sound >>

I hate to do this to you, because you have been so nice so far, but by and
large, my position has always been that there are good pianos and okay pianos,
and then there's junk. In the realm of good pianos, properly maintained by
good technicians, and voiced to meet the standards of a good pair of ears,
there is not really a signature sound among piano manufacturers. If you become
intimately familiar with the quirks of a single instrument -- like your own
piano -- you should easily be able to pick it out of a pack while blindfolded.
But if I drove you blinfolded to Steinway Hall in Manhattan, had you listen to
50 B's all lined up in their customer selection room, and asked you to identify
each piano, you would think you were hearing virtually every brand of quality
piano made -- but they would all be Steinways. Now some other manufacturers
have greater sample to sample uniformity, but it's still possible for one high
quality piano to imitate some of the characteristics of another high quality
piano and fool "most of the people most of the time". Fooling "all of the
people all of the time" may be a stretch and open to debate, but I'm a pretty
good listener, and I have been fooled. I played an Estonia at the trade show a
few years ago, and thought it was outrageously good for a piano that (at that
time) was less than half the cost of a Steinway. Do I want one? Nope.
Anyway, I hope I was able to at least make my point here in this already too
long post.

Thanks for your response, George, and good luck with your Baldwin L -- get it
checked out by the right people. You may be amazed at what you already own.

[George Gilliland]

I'll defer to your obviously better-informed judgments. Many thanks for your
comments, and your time. 宥eorge

p.s. Uh, you know Dave, if you still want an L, I'd be more than happy to swap for
your SF10 ;-)

[Dave Andrews]

George Gilliland wrote:

<< p.s. Uh, you know Dave, if you still want an L, I'd be more than happy to
swap for your SF10 ;-) >>

If you throw in Davey Slayer's Harley, it's a deal.

[RonGardini]

>Uh......was there an odor associated with this "piano vapor" and longer
>decay
>rate?

I experienced some of Dave's piano vapor one afternoon at an armory in
Harrisburg Pa. It cleared the entire armory!!!!

[Larry]

>If you throw in Davey Slayer's Harley, it's a deal.
>
>With all due respect,
>Dave Andrews

Davey doesn't have a Harley. You have to be able to make it through the front
door of the Harley dealership before you can get to the sales counter to buy
one. Let your imagination run with the image of a pansy walking into the local
Harley dealer saying things like "Ok all you loopy spock brained motorcycle
riding losers - I will not back down from all you cult type dweebs. Oui Oui -
anyways - whatever".....now try to imagine just how much time would pass before
Roy and Mungo took him out back to run some crash tests with him.

[Don]

On 18 May 2001 03:10:22 GMT, larryin...@aol.comnojunk (Larry)
wrote:

>>If you throw in Davey Slayer's Harley, it's a deal.
>>
>>With all due respect,
>>Dave Andrews
>
>
>Davey doesn't have a Harley.

I am not sure if he can even ride a two-wheeler yet.