His piano sounds normal to me... can I see a source?
>Voicing and Regulating: Horowitz's Conception vs the Industry Standard
>
> Imagine driving Mario Andretti's race car if you are a racing
> enthusiast, or swinging Babe Ruth's favorite bat if you are a
> baseball fan. Pianists all over the country have recently
> experienced the equivalent exhilarating adventure for pianists -
> playing Vladimir Horowitz's personal piano. This instrument, which
> was a wedding gift from the Steinway piano manufacturing company in
> 1943, has recently been available for pianists to play, while on a
> tour of 75 cities. It is especially inspiring to play this famous
> piano considering that Horowitz used it on his world tours; he
> allowed no one else to play it while he was alive, other than Murray
> Perahia. As most Clavier readers are aware, Horowitz performed only
> on Sunday afternoons (even at the White House), and there were other
> requirements: the money had to be enticing, he had to have his own
> piano and piano bench (he always carried a spare), as well as his
> personal piano technician (Franz Mohr). The world is full of
> industry standards. For example, most slices of bread fit the
> average toaster and modern automobiles have steering wheels, as
> opposed to some other type of navigational device. The piano
> manufacturing world is no different. All manufacturers have voicing
> and regulating standards so that there will be some degree of
> consistency in terms of how their products sound and feel to
> pianists. The condition of Horowitz's piano reveals that his
> conception was somewhat different than the industry standard. Anyone
> who has played Horowitz's personal piano would have quickly
> discovered why Horowitz insisted on playing only this instrument.
> Even though his technician was also head of Steinway's concert
> artists division, the piano as it was maintained specifically for
> Horowitz defied the industry standards to conform to Horowitz's
> edicts, according to his exacting personal preferences. How is the
> Horowitz piano different from all others? It is voiced unusually
> brightly, which enables the pianist to sound absolutely thunderous
> when required. This instrument is also easy to play softly, however,
> once the pianist becomes accustomed to the possibilities presented by
> precise regulation. Most pianists are used to bright pianos, but
> generally these instruments are bright due to the fact that hammer
> maintenance has been neglected. Pianos with hammers which fall into
> this category are uncontrollable at the lower dynamic range; as the
> hammers become flat, not only does the sound become brighter (and the
> tone quality also changes), but the distance to the string becomes
> altered. The pianist therefore has less control of the hammer.
> This process is so gradual that most pianists aren't conscious of the
> changes. Horowitz was aware that in order to maintain the voicing
> and the level of control he wanted, constant attention to the hammers
> was necessary. Consequently, his hammers were kept in excellent
> condition by his technician. Franz Mohr not only voiced Horowitz's
> piano brightly, but regulated it so precisely, that it was also easy
> to play softly. The Horowitz piano defies the industry standards, as
> well, in terms of how the action "feels," in that it has an extremely
> light action. Horowitz used to tell his technician that the keys
> should go down, even if he simply blew on them. In order to achieve
> the desired result, Franz Mohr found it helpful to file down the size
> of the hammers. Horowitz required precisely 44 grams of key
> resistance and full-size hammers were too heavy to allow the action
> to be weighted easily to this gram-weight (the average Steinway was
> weighted to approximately 57 grams during much of the time Franz Mohr
> worked with Horowitz). The result is an extremely fast action which
> is difficult for most pianists to control initially, due to the fact
> that other pianos present greater resistance to the fingers. The
> author's students agreed that after a brief period of getting used to
> the Horowitz concept of how a piano should feel, they would expect to
> be immediately capable of greater technical prowess. They also
> concurred that their interpretive skill was instantly enhanced by
> this instrument; because of the brightness of the voicing and the
> exacting regulation of the action, the dynamic range is effectively
> extended, thereby presenting increased interpretive possibilities.
> The reader should be reminded at this point that the bulk of the
> standard piano literature was written for instruments which had
> lighter actions than today's pianos. Earlier instruments
> (harpsichords, clavichords, and fortepianos) generally also had a
> reduced "key dip" when compared with today's pianos. The evolution
> of the piano during the 19th and 20th centuries, then, has actually
> made this literature more difficult to perform on modern instruments.
> Before the reader draws the obvious conclusion at this point and
> subscribes to the philosophy that piano manufacturers should
> implement the necessary design changes to allow all pianos to conform
> to Horowitz's conception, it must be pointed out that there are
> trade-offs. In order to maintain the full dynamic range with such
> bright hammers, especially at the lower dynamic level, constant
> regulation and hammer maintenance would be required. This would not
> only be tremendously expensive, but would also require a first-rate
> piano technician, which is a rare commodity, indeed. Additionally,
> the reality is that smaller hammers, which would be required to
> achieve a lighter action, also render not only a brighter sound but a
> different tone quality. This "brighter" sound, which is perfectly
> acceptable to most pianists, can quickly become "obnoxious" if proper
> regulation and hammer maintenance is not supported. Larger hammers
> with more felt are more "forgiving" in this respect. Most pianists
> don't pay very close attention to tone quality, having become
> accustomed to not listening to the almost universally poorly
> maintained practice pianos available to them as students in homes,
> music departments, and conservatories. These pianos are generally in
> poor condition, again due to the expense of proper maintenance.
> Sound conception is not only a function of maintenance, however.
> Different manufacturers also have varying concepts of what a piano
> should sound like; for example, American pianos in general, do not
> sound like Asian pianos. Pianists who become increasingly focused on
> awareness of tone quality will find themselves hearing differences
> between pianos. "Listening" becomes more enjoyable when a high
> quality, well-maintained instrument is available. The pianist who
> becomes absorbed with sound in this way, will begin to notice
> differences in pianos, even in sound recordings. Many recordings
> acknowledge the make of piano used in the performance. Attention to
> this detail will aid the intelligent pianist in developing awareness
> of differing sound ideals between manufacturers. It should be noted
> that, even though not all Steinways sound alike (brighter pianos tend
> to be used for concerto performances, for example, and every
> instrument has distinctive quality), most Steinways sound more like
> other Steinways than like Yamahas or Kawais. The more we become
> focused on listening to tone quality, the better equipped we will
> become to determine what the standard should be in terms of ideal
> sound quality. Sound does not exist in a vacuum, however, and
> practical elements necessarily enter into the picture, as we have
> seen. In order to achieve the Horowitz ideal, then, the current
> industry concept in terms of "sound" would have to be sacrificed.
> Our opinions on this matter are influenced by our personal preference
> and by our level of "awareness" of tone quality. Regardless of our
> preferences, it is unlikely that most pianists will call for a
> substantive change in terms of the industry standard in order to more
> closely approximate Horowitz's ideal piano, if only due to the
> prohibitive pragmatic problems such as the increased expense which
> would necessarily accompany such an alteration. Few pianists have the
> luxury of defying the industry standards and indulging their
> distinctive taste in piano sound. Horowitz was not only able to
> indulge himself in this way, but he did so with the support and
> cooperation of the piano manufacturing community.
>
>Walden Hughes
https://mail.ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/1996-August/008929.html
Topic: What is a "good interpretation"?