---------- > From: Ted_Sambell@BanffCentre.AB.CA > To: pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> > Subject: Re: Shubert Upright Bridge > Date: Saturday, July 05, 1997 5:59 PM > > RE>Shubert Upright Bridge 7/5/97 > > > > Dear all: > > When I was teaching the Piano Tech. Program at George Brown College in > Toronto, we had a very similar bridge on a late 19th. century piano. The > make was Hoerr Bros., apparantly two brothers who had worked at Mason & > Risch. The piano was an all round disaster, the bridges being the worst. > > The design was as follows: > > Two rods, five thirty-seconds of an inch in diameter ran along the top and > lower edges of the surface of the bridge. These were partially set into > shallow grooves. The center of the bridge was hollowed about one eigth in. > along its length. A pressure bar over the strings bent the wire down > between the two rods. While this certainly solved the downbearing > problem,it was impossible to keep the strings spaced, as this depended > entirely on the accuracy of the hitchpin layout. Otherwise there was > nothing to stop the strings from drifting sideways during tuning. It is > also obvious that each string of a unison differed in length, thus creating > varying inharmonicity and making for tuning problems once again. > > The student working on this piano actually ended up making an entire new > back, complete with soundboard and bridges. He did a truly remarkable job > and the piano sounded very good, considering we were not piano makers. > There were just too many problems to do otherwise, one being that a scale > evaluation revealed that there were three octaves which exceeded the > permissible breaking percentages. Entirely re-designed bridges to correct > the string lengths were made. > > Regards, Ted_Sambell@banffcentre.ab.ca > > -------------------------------------- > Date: 6/25/97 11:02 PM > To: Ted Sambell > From: pianotech > pianoman wrote: > >=20 > > Today I tuned a pre-1895 Shubert upright. Instead of having an upper a= > nd > > lower bridge pin on the bridge, the middle of the bridge was hollowed o= > ut > > with a pressure bar appliance was screwed down on top of the strings. > > > > To James Grebe, Warren Fisher, et al: > > Well, now, wait a just a moss (We don't grow cotton out here, but there > is lots of fuzzy green stuff that I think is moss. Or something.) pickin > minute here! Just what was really so wrong with that Shubert bridge > system?=20 > > One function of the piano bridge is to provide an acoustical and > physical termination for the vibrating (speaking) portion of the string. > Another is to couple the energy from that vibrating string to the > soundboard/rib assembly. Apparently, this arrangement did both. At least > to some extent. > > Down bearing, of course, is a whole other subject from string > termination.=20 > > James, you didn=92t mention what condition the bridge termination system > was in. Just that it looked odd. Apparently, the system is still > working=97at least to some extant. After 102 years, that gives the system > some credibility all by itself. I=92d really like to know more about it. > > I have some questions. > 1) What did the strings actually rest on? Wood? Some type of metal > insert? Anything? > 2) Did this system continue all the way down through the bass? > 3) What condition was the system in? Had the bridge developed any cracks > where the screws from the =93pressure bar=94 went into the wood? > 4) Was the =93pressure bar=94 continuous through each section, or were > individual bars used at each unison? > 5) How much string deflection was there? > > I=92ve been puzzling over alternatives to the conventional offset bridge > pin arrangement for some time now and I=92d like to know more. It seems t= > o > me that, after a couple of hundred years of development, some viable > system other than the bridge pin arrangement currently popular should > have evolved. > > I realize you probably didn=92t spend a whole lot of time examining the > piano, but anything you can remember will be appreciated. A few of the > things Rube invented actually worked pretty well, you know. > > Thanks, > ddf > Mr. Sambell, What you described sounds exactly like the Shubert I worked on. We have a mutual friend (Ken Burton) whom I have met on this list and he has spoken very highly of you and I am honored to talk to you. As I said I couldn't nosy in at the construction because of the client breathing down my back. Warrens comments about strings moving around I'm sure was a problem. I have been doing this work since 1962 and this is the first I have seen of these. James Grebe from St. Louis pianoman@inlink.com> > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC