Old uprights - think twice?

[Tony Caught]

Hi Del

----- Original Message -----
From: Delwin D Fandrich <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Old uprights - think twice?


> From: "Tony Caught" <caute@optusnet.com.au>
>
>
> > Hi Peoples,   Sorry for the rave.
> >
> > It sometimes seem that the longer we are in business the more respect we
> > have for the older pianos.
>
> Perhaps because we, also, are getting older?
>
No, not older.  How about. The more we tune pianos the more most of us
listen to the sounds of the piano.  With a lot of different piano sounds
stored in our memory we are then more able to judge the quality od the
sound. Experience.
>
> > I remember 20 odd years ago that conversations I was having with
pianists
> > and music teachers that the old piano has that "sound" but the new
pianos
> > all sound high or tinny or sharp or something at that time I could not
> > describe.  To you, today I would say the old pianos were strung at a
lower
> > tension and thus had a lower inharmonicity rating.
>
> Having measured and evaluated literally hundreds of scales on older
upright
> pianos, I must question this observation. Most of those I've looked at
have
> had overall tensions ranging from well into the upper 30,000 lb (13,600
kgf)
> to the mid 40,000 lb (18,160 kgf) range with the occasional wildcat scale
> going into the 50,000 lb (22,700 kgf) range. Most of them start off quite
> low at C-88, going up rapidly one or two octaves down. Nearly all of them
> take a severe dip at the bottom end of the tenor bridge. Bass string
> tensions are all over the ball park, with some being extremely high,
others
> being quite low.

> In other words, there is little rhyme or reason to most of them. And, yes,
I
> know. At this point, somebody is going to dredge up one that that was
> exceptional and try to use it to prove the point. I can only say that
> finding even a half-way decent scale on an old upright is going to be the
> exception, not the rule. Fortunately, there is a lot of lattitude here.

Of course there is always the exception to the rule, there are lots of rules
so there are lots of exceptions. I should learn to be more explicit.

The old straight strung pianos, the old half iron frame pianos, the old 3/4
iron frame pianos, etc. As time has progressed from the wooden framed piano
to dodays piano the tension has been increasing and is still increasing. (Is
that better Del)

Sure many of the old scales had many defects that can be overcome in a major
way when rebuilding or in a more simplified way when restringing. Taking
cost factors into consideration, I say that rescaling string sizes only in
bass and treble is more viable than altering bridges as well. This was the
cost is not increased out of the price range of the customer.

The other factor to be taken in is (as you said further down) the soundboard
thickness. If the soundboard is thiner in the bass (compared to the mid. and
treble) can you lower the tension on the bass strings to counter the
inharmonicity but still have the volume ? Can you by shaping the soundboard
in the bass and treble sections increase the sound clarity whithout a
decrease in  the volume ?

> The one thing most of them did have was decent hammers. Hammers having
some
> actual resiliency. The industry had not yet entered the era of harder is
> better and 'POWER SELLS!' Give me POWER or give me nothing at all! That
> sales schlock out there must have POWER if he/she is going to be able to
> sell these things with absolutely no knowledge of the product he/she is
> selling. (If you're selling pianos and you do know something about them,
> don't blame me -- this whole situation just makes your job more difficult.
> Lobby for better pianos.)
>
Agreed. And how many times have you seen NEW Japanese HARD hammers put on
old pianos in reconditioning.  Its wrong, you know it, I know it, but, does
the average tuner now it or even care about it.
>
> > New pianos to me are new pianos.  Some new pianos tonally die after 6 or
7
> > years, even good ones. I don't profess to know the real reasons why, I
> guess
> > at things like kiln dried timber, timber selection, glues used, shaped
> > soundboards, the desire to always reduce costs in production via cheaper
> > materials and labour, the list goes on.
>
> I'd start by looking at the at the mass and stiffness of the soundboards,
> Many, if not most of these modern, mass produced pianos are using
> soundboards that are much more massive and stiff than those found in their
> older counterparts. Next, I'd look at the density and mass of the hammers
> necessary to overcome the inertia and stiffness of those soundboards. Oh,
> yes. You might also take a look at their scaling. That may not have
improved
> much either.

You know that if you made a NEW piano with an more vibrant soundboard,
shaped and thinner in the bass, then used hammers that are less dense that
gave a more mellow tone but still the volume, and then did not worry about
the scaling at all, I guess you would have a NEW OLD PIANO that we could
further inprove on by rescaling.


Isn't life wonderful ?

Regards

Tony Caught ICPTG
Australia
caute@optusnet.com.au