sanderson Bass strings/scale

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Delacour" <JD@Pianomaker.co.uk>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: November 29, 2001 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Sanderson Bass strings/scale


> That is quite so, and that is the reason that I regularly lighten and
> totally redesign the bass scales of certin makers, such as Grotiran
> and Schiedmayer, whose bass scales were ridiculously tight.  Such
> scales, for all their tension, produce a very muffled tone and the
> drastic lightening of the scale not only frees up the soundboard but
> allows the strings to develop a rich sound.  So much for rescaling
> the bass.
>
> Customers often ask me to look at the plain wire scale and "rescale"
> it.  I always have a look to see if any minor changes are desirable
> but the fact is that it is not possible to "rescale" the plain wire
> scale without fitting a new bridge, since it is the bridge and not
> primarily the wire gauges that define the scale.  On certain pianos,
> whose bridge is acceptable but which have been overloaded, it is
> possible to achieve a marked improvement in tone by a general
> lightening of the gauges, and this I have occasionally been able to
> do, but it is unusual.

I don't find it unusual at all. While I certainly agree that laying out new
bridges is the best way to rescale, subtle, but still noticeable,
improvements can usually be made by more carefully matching the wire sizes
to the actual string lengths involved. Many bridges are erratic in their
sweep even though the manufacturer may have used a relatively even
progression of wire sizes. The Steinway Model O is one of them.


> >
> >  In stwys capstan lines float because the block placement does and
> >so does the bridge placement. If the length of note 88 is measured
> >on several different models say 6 different "Os" the string length
> >often be quite short and vary by as much as 1/4".(This is also true
> >of other stwy models) These less than 2" speaking lengths reduce
> >tension and therefore volume especially in the top octaves.
>
> Both the O's I have in for rebuilding at the moment have C88 = 50.5
> mm == 2" exactly, and what they do in New York goodness knows but I
> would be surprised to find a variation of even a millimetre in a
> Hamburg Steinway let alone 6 mm.

This variation is not unusual in a NY Model O. Personally, I've measured
C-88 speaking lengths of between 45 and 50 mm. Now, which of these shall we
assume is the 'correct' scale for this piano? To which position did Steinway
match the wire gauges to the speaking length?


>
> When we were arguing about the
> Model B a while ago, a concensus seemed to be reached that 54 mm was
> a good length for C88 and the reason the B is consistently
> troublesome and dope-worthy in the extreme treble is that C88 is only
> 48 mm or whatever.  You would be suggesting that I might come across
> a B with 54 mm rather than 48, which I find unlikely.

I doubt you'll run across a factory B with a speaking length of 54 mm. You
might, however, run across one which has had its bridge replaced with a C-88
speaking length of 54 mm.


>
> >  I have been routinely rotating the top of the bridge back when
> >installing a new board to accommodate a speaking length of 2". This
> >small change makes a modest increase in tension using the original
> >scale and improves power and projection in the top octave or so.
>
> Most people would say you could go further.

In our shop we do go further. But I don't recommend it to others unless I
know their track record and experience as a rebuilder.


>
> To change the wire gauges on a Steinway is deliberately to change the
> character of the tone -- and inevitably for the worse.  The long
> bridge on Steinways is correctly shaped and positioned for the
> Steinway sound, which comes from a relatively short, low-tension
> scaling. In my opinion, it's the height of presumption to alter
> this.  Most of us know the design faults of the various Steinway
> models and noone would claim they're perfect, but if they'd wanted
> their pianos to sound like Broadwoods, they had sufficient skill at
> hand to succeed.  Steinways are designed to sound a certain way and
> to change the plain wire scale is plain stupid.
>
> JD
>

So, John, are you saying that only Steinway got it right? That it's stupid
to change a Steinway scale but acceptable--even desirable to change a
Grotrian or a Schiedmayer. Or is it just stupid to change the tenor/treble
scaling but smart to change the bass scaling? Is it OK to change the bass
scaling of a Steinway? How is it that one alters the original factory intent
and that should never be done but the other offers good, valid improvements
in the piano's performance? Or was it just the Steinway designers of
1885--or whenever--that rendered pianos of such perfect performance that
they should still completely fulfill the desires of the pianist in 2001 and
it was all the others that made scaling mistakes?

It is true that much of the rescaling work that is done exhibits a certain
ignorance of basic real-world piano design principles. But it is also true
that much is done in a gentle and subtle way, improving on both the original
piano's strengths and its weaknesses. In the case we're discussing--the
original Steinway Model 0--the scale is decidedly short through the top
treble section. As a consequence field technicians typically end up shaping
the bejeebers out of the hammers and/or lacquering them until they more
closely resemble fiber-reinforced plastic in an attempt to get the kind of
power out of the section the piano owners are demanding.

Why not give the system a little boost by judiciously going up a half-size
in wire here and there? Or by designing a new bridge. Good rescaling,
whether done by the simple manipulation of wire sizes or through the design
of new bridges, should not appreciably alter the original tone character of
the piano. In other words, the overall Model O scale will still be
relatively short and its string tensions relatively low. But the balance
will be better, the bass/tenor cross-over less objectionable and the upper
third will have a brighter, clearer sound without the necessity of
over-shaping the hammers or juicing them to death.

I don't view this as either arrogance or stupidity. When done with care and
finesse I call it giving the customer the most performance for his/her
investment. I call it keeping up with technology. I call it sensible piano
remanufacturing.

Regards,

Del