C88 Hammer Position/SPR

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Caught" <caute@optusnet.com.au>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: November 14, 2001 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: C88 Hammer Position/SPR


>
> I also have measured many pianos to calculate the SPR and agree that they
> are all over the place. Possibly because there iron casting methods were
not
> that great and also possibly because most of the pianos I measured were
> uprights of the middle price range.

The poor iron casting gets blamed for a lot of things. But, really, casting
methods even then were not all that vague. At least not in the U.S. and
Europe. True, castings do shrink as they cool and the iron freezes, but this
shrinkage is more-or-less predictable and amounts to only about 1% or so
depending on the size and shape of the casting. So, even with a
double-shrink pattern things aren't going to be off that much.

What is usually to blame is the pattern work. That, and, after the fact, the
drilling and machining work.


>
> We have to remember that there were
> some 5,000 piano manufacturers in the late1800's and most of them did not
> produce Bechsteins, Steinways or Bluthners. There was also a gentleman of
> repute in Canton, China, who, in 1984 patented (in China) the raising of
the
> strike point in the upper treble of the piano from 1/8 SPR to 1/19 SPR.

You can probably patent a lot of things in China still. Your gentleman would
have a somwhat harder time obtaining this patent either in the U.S. or in
Europe. Although Harold Conklin did obtain his patent on strike points as
recently as the 1970s (I think, without looking it up.). His work examined
the effect of the hammer strike point from the middle of the scale on down.

And you are correct, most of those builders did not produce Bechsteins,
Steinways or Bluthners. Most of them did not do their own design work,
however, taking the less demanding expediency of copying more-or-less
directly the work of some other designer/manufacturer. (See Wolfenden's
comments on the subject.) Somewhat like is still being done today.

When you add the copying errors to the pattern work errors there's no
telling what new and innovative results an otherwise uncreative piano
manufacturer can come up with.


>
> What I am trying to say is "First things first. SPR"
> Then why! should have been the next question. Then what is the difference
in
> hitting in a 1/8th SPR and a 1/7 SPR and how does it affect the tone and
> carrying power of the piano.

If you have a chance to listen to a Baldwin 6000 (their current 52"
vertical) you can hear for yourself what a difference the SPR makes. This
piano continues the progression of the SPR right down to A-1 where it is
1/5. The sound is certainly unique. Unfortunately, it is also a 'love-it' or
'hate-it' sort of thing. Some folks absolutely love the sound resulting from
this SPR. Others can't stand it.

Del